This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. No. 31,466 4 TRIGINAL JACKSON, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 Trevor Rigler, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Triginal D. Jackson 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 Pro se Appellant 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 182 Defendant appeals pro se his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly 1 weapon, a fourth degree felony. Our noti ce proposed to dismiss because Defendant’s 2 notice of appeal did not satisfy the time and place requirements for filing a notice of 3 appeal. Defendant filed a timely memorandum in opposition. Defendant also filed 4 a “memorandum in support of motion for appeal bond”; a “motion for appeal bond”; 5 and a “motion for appeal bond/undue hardship ” (collectively referred to as “motions 6 for appeal bond”). We are not persuaded by Defendant’s argum ents as set forth in his 7 memorandum in opposition, and therefore di smiss his appeal. In light of our 8 dismissal, his motions for appeal bond are moot and accordingly denied. 9 As detailed in our notice, Defendant failed to properly invoke this Court’s 10 jurisdiction because he did not comply withthe appellate rules governing the time and 11 place in which to file the notice of appeal. See Trujillo v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 273, 12 277-78, 871 P.2d 369, 373-74 (1994) (establishing that the timely filing of a notice 13 of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the ex ercise of jurisdiction to hear an appeal); 14 Lowe v. Bloom , 110 N.M. 555, 556, 798 P. 2d 156, 157 (1990) (holding that filing a 15 notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal s does not substantially comply with Rule 16 12-202(A)’s requirement that the notice of appeal be filed with the district court), 17 modified on other grounds by Go vich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc. , 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 18 P.2d 94, 98 (1991). 193 As we further explained in our notice, we may excuse untimely and improperly 1 filed notices of appeal in criminal ap peals we receive from represented criminal 2 defendants, by presuming ineff ective assistance of counsel. See State v. Duran , 105 3 N.M. 231, 232, 731 P.2d 374, 375 (Ct. App. 1986). Howe ver, because Defendant 4 elected to proceed pro se below and on app eal and thus waived his right to counsel 5 [RP 30, 35, 36], we decline to extend the Duran presumption to Defendant’s appeal. 6 See, e.g., State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Amanda M. , 7 2006-NMCA-133, ¶ 19, 140 N.M. 578, 144 P.3d 137 (“In order for the presumption 8 of ineffective assistance of counsel to apply, the party must have a right to effective 9 assistance of counsel.”); see also State v. Reyes , 2005-NMCA-080, ¶ 10, 137 N.M. 10 727, 114 P.3d 407 (recognizing that a pro se defendant is precluded from complaining 11 on appeal that ineffective self-representation amounts to a denial of effective 12 assistance of counsel). 13 We acknowledge Defendant’s assertion that he attemp ted to file his notice of 14 appeal by email. [MIO 5] This, however, is a matter that is not of record and thus 15 will not be considered by this Court. See generally State v. Romero , 87 N.M. 279, 16 280, 532 P.2d 208, 209 (Ct. App. 1975) (“Matters outside the record present no issue 17 for review.”). Nonetheless, while Ru le 5-103.2 NMRA addresses the electronic 18 service and filing of pleadings and other papers, the requirements of Rule 5- 194 103.2(D)(1)&(2) must first be met. This S ection requires that documents may be filed 1 with the district if “(1) the Supreme Court has adopted technical specifications for 2 electronic transmission; and (2) the court in which documents are filed by electronic 3 transmission has complied with the technicalspecifications for electronic transmission 4 adopted by the Supreme Court.” Because neither requirement has been happened, 5 electronic filing was not a viable option for Defendant. 6 We further understand Defendant to argue that, although he represented 7 himself, he had standby counsel who should have ensured that his notice of appeal 8 was adequate. [MIO 3, 9-10; DS 10] As an initial matter, we note that the record 9 does not support Defendant’s assertion that he was given standby counsel. 10 Nonetheless, even assuming that Defendant was given standby counsel, the role of 11 standby counsel is to ensure th at defendants have the tools to prepare an adequate pro 12 se defense. See generally State v. Vincent , 2005-NMCA-064, ¶¶ 45-50, 137 N.M. 13 462, 112 P.3d 1119 (addressing the role of standby counsel). Defendant cites no legal 14 authority for the proposition that standby counselis required to ensure that defendants 15 file a notice of appeal. See In re Adoption of Doe , 100 N.M. 764, 765, 676 P.2d 1329, 16 1330 (1984) (stating that “[i]ssues raised inappellate briefs which are unsupported by 17 cited authority will not be reviewed by us on appeal,” and that anappellate court will 18 not do basic legal research for counsel). 195 Based on the notice and the foregoing discussion, we dismiss Defendant’s 1 appeal. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

4 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 5
WE CONCUR: 6

7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 8

9 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 10