This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 filed 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. 33,047 4 BRETT WOOLF, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 7 William G.W. Shoobridge, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Law Offices of the Public Defender 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 David Henderson, Assist ant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16
MEMORANDUM OPINION 172 KENNEDY, Chief Judge. 1 {1} Brett Woolf (Defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence on the grounds that 2 it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This Court issued a calendar notice 3 proposing to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we 4 have given due consideration. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 5 {2} In this Court’s calendar notice, we noted that this case has an unusual posture 6 in that it is one of seven appeals filed by De fendant arising out of the district court’s 7 judgments and sentences relating to seven di fferent criminal cases. We further noted 8 that, on appeal, Defendant was challenging the constitutionality of his sentence under 9 both the federal and state constitutions. However, we proposed to conclude that 10 Defendant had failed to pres erve any argument that the state constitution provides 11 greater protection than the federal constituti on and declined to address that issue in 12 our notice of proposed disposition. Defe ndant does not argue in his memorandum in 13 opposition that the state constitutional issue wa s preserved. Therefore, our Opinion 14 is limited to the constitutionality of hi s sentence under the federal constitution. 15 {3} With respect to Defendant’s claim th at his sentence violated the federal 16 constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, we pointed out that 17 Defendant’s sentence was within the parame ters defined by our Legislature and was 18 not grossly disproportionate to the crime to which Defendant pleaded guilty. 19 Moreover, to the extent Defendant argue d that his four-year habitual offender 203 enhancement amounted to cruel and unus ual punishment, this Court relied on State 1 v. Ruedato propose to conclude otherwis e. 1999-NMCA-033, ¶ 16, 126 N.M. 738, 2 975 P.2d 351 (holding that an eight-year hab itual offender enhancement on a fourth3 degree felony shoplifting charge did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment). 4 {4} In response, Defendant contends thatthis Court should view the sentences 5 imposed in each of the seven separate criminal prosecuti ons against him collectively 6 and hold that the collective sentence viol ates the federal constitutional prohibition 7 against cruel and unusual punishment. Defe ndant, however, provides no authority for 8 this proposition. See In re Adoption of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 9 676 P.2d 1329 (recognizing that where a party cites no authority to support an 10 argument, we may assume no such authority exists). Moreover, to the extent 11 Defendant argues that the district court abus ed its discretion in declining to run any 12 of the enhanced sentences concurrently because he accepted responsibility and 13 pleaded guilty, he provides no authority for the proposition that it is an abuse of 14 discretion for a sentencing judge to refuseto run sentences concurrently when a 15 criminal defendant accepts responsibility by pleading guilty. Id. In this Court’s 16 calendar notice, we directed Defendant to authority, stating that “the trial judge is 17 invested with discretion as to the length of the sentence, whether the sentence should 18 be suspended or deferred, or made to run concurrently or consecutively within the 19 guidelines imposed by the Legislature.” State v. Duran , 1998-NMCA-153, ¶ 41, 126 204 N.M. 60, 966 P.2d 768. By faili ng to provide authority for Defendant’s assertion that 1 the failure to run his sentences concurrentlywas an abuse of disc retion, he has failed 2 to meet his burden of rebutting this Court’s notice of proposed disposition by pointing 3 out errors in law or in fact. See State v. Ibarra , 1993-NMCA-040, ¶ 11, 116 N.M. 4 486, 864 P.2d 302 (“A party opposing summarydisposition is required to come 5 forward and specifically point out errors in fact and/or law.”). 6 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated aboveand in this Court’s notice of proposed 7 disposition, we affirm Defendant’s sentence. 8 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

________________ ____________________ 10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 11
WE CONCUR: 12

___________________________ 13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14

___________________________ 15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 16