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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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. A-1-CA-36659 4 RICKY SALAZAR, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 James M. Hudson, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 L. Helen Bennett P.C. 12 L. Helen Bennett 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 ZAMORA, Judge. 17
{1} Defendant Ricky Salazar appeals from his jury trial convictions for aggravated 18 battery against a household member and criminal trespass in 2001. [DS 2] We issued 192 a notice proposing to summarily affirm, in part, and to summarily dismiss, in part. 1 Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, pursuant to State v. Franklin 1967- 2 NMSC-151, ¶ 9, 78 N.M . 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer , 1985-NMCA-029, 3 ¶ 24, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, which we have duly considered. Remaining 4 unpersuaded, we affirm, in part, and dismiss, in part. 5
{2} Defendant first asserts he received anunfair trial because the jury was not 6 impartial. [DS 5] Reviewing Defendant’s unpreserved claim for fundamental error, 7 we proposed to affirm. [CN 3-4] Inhis memorandum in opposition, Defendant 8 continues to argue that the single genera l question asked of th e venire panel was 9 insufficient to uncover any prejudice relate d to the excused prospective juror's 10 statements and to ensure the remaining panel members had not been tainted by those 11 statements. [MIO 3-4] However, Defendant does not explain how this remedial 12 procedure resulted in an unfair trial am ounting to fundamental error. “A party 13 responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point 14 out errors of law and fact[,]” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill 15 this requirement. State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 16 P.2d 1003, superseded by statute as stated in State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031, 297 17 P.3d 374. We therefore hold Defendant has not demonstrated he received an unfair 18 trial and propose to affirm on that ground. 193 {3} Defendant next asserts the district c ourt erred in denying his Rule 5-803 NMRA 1 petition on timeliness grounds. [DS 5] Noti ng Defendant was self-represented when 2 his petition was filed and denied, and the Duran presumption is not extended to a self3 represented Defendant, we proposed to di smiss Defendant’s appeal from the denial 4 of his Rule 5-803 petition. [CN 6] Inhis memorandum in opposition, Defendant 5 argues appellate counsel was appointed in recognition of Defendant’s right to appeal 6 his conviction, which he asserts his trial counsel failed to pursue. [MIO 4-5] We 7 understand Defendant to again assert the Duran presumption should apply because he 8 was unable to pursue a direct appeal un til now. Indeed, we ha ve indulged Defendant 9 with a Duran presumption in his direct appeal a sserting an unfair trial, but Defendant 10 does not explain why the presumption should apply to appeal from denial of his Rule 11 5-803 petition where he was self-represented. Appellate courts are under no obligation 12 to review unclear or undeveloped arguments. See State v. Guerra , 2012-NMSC-014, 13 ¶ 21, 278 P.3d 1031. Defendant also fails to point out specific errors of law and fact. 14 See Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10. Therefore, we conclude Defendant’s appeal 15 from the denial of his Rule 5-803 petition was untimely and must be dismissed. 16
{4} Accordingly, for the reasons explaine d above and in our notice of proposed 17 disposition, we affirm, in part, and dismiss, in part. 18
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 194 1 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

4 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 5

6 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 7