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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,602 4 DAVID LOPEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Public Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 ZAMORA, Judge. 18
{1} Defendant David Lopez appeals from a judgment and sentence finding him 19 guilty of felony driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs 202 (DWI), fifth offense, [RP 157] following his entry of a guilty plea. [RP 110] In this 1 Court’s notice of proposed disposition, weproposed to conclude Defendant did not 2 demonstrate the invalidity of his prior DWI convictions and to affirm his conviction 3 for DWI, fifth offense. [CN 1, 5] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which 4 we have given due consideration. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 5
{2} Defendant continues to challenge the validity of his conviction and has also 6 moved this Court to amend his docketi ng statement pursuant to Rule 12-208(E) 7 NMRA to add an argument that three of hi s prior convictions for DWI cannot be used 8 for enhancement purposes, because the waiver of counsel forms lack a 9 countersignature of the public defender. [M IO 1] The essential requirements to show 10 good cause for our allowance of an amendmen t to an appellant’s docketing statement 11 are: (1) that the motion be timely, (2) that the new issue sought to be raised was either 12 (a) properly preserved below or (b) allowed to be raised for the first time on appeal, 13 and (3) that the issues raised are viable. See State v. Moore , 1989-NMCA-073, ¶ 42, 14 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91, overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado , 15 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730. Fo r the reasons that follow, we deny 16 Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement on the ground that the issue 17 raised is not viable. 183 {3} Defendant asserts the waivers of c ounsel are invalid, because NMSA 1978, 1 Section 31-15-12(E) (1993) re quires that “[t]he waiver shall be in writing and 2 countersigned by a district public defender. ” [MIO 1] However, as Defendant also 3 acknowledges, this Court has previously he ld the lack of a countersignature by the 4 public defender does not render a waiver of counsel invalidfor purposes of enhancing 5 later convictions. See State v. Pino , 1997-NMCA-001, ¶ 16, 122 N.M. 789, 932 P.2d 6 13. [MIO 2] Defendant concedes Pino is controlling law but asks this Court to “re7 examine” its decision. Defendant asserts “[t]he issue of public defender 8 countersignatures is a prominent issue” [MIO 2] but does not pose a compelling 9 reason for this Court to overrule Pino . While we agree that compliance with the 10 countersignature requirement furthers the objective of placing on the record the 11 elements supporting the constitutional validity of a guilty plea, “[a] defendant may not 12 raise every conceivable error that may have led to the prior conviction, but is limited 13 to those errors that would form the basis of a legitimate collateral attack, i.e., those 14 errors” that result in the denial of a subs tantively fair trial or fundamental error. Pino , 15 1997-NMCA-011, ¶¶ 14-15. Consequently, we c onclude the issue of lack of the public 16 defender’s countersignature is non-viableand deny Defendant’s motion to amend. 17
{4} This Court’s proposed disposition stated that where a defendant seeks to 18 collaterally attack a prior conviction on the basis that the plea was not made 194 voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, “ it [is d]efendant’s burden to produce 1 evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those convictions, not the [s]tate’s burden to 2 prove their validity.” State v. Pacheco , 2008-NMCA-059, ¶ 8, 144 N.M. 61, 183 P.3d 3 946. [CN 3] Defendant must demonstrate any alleged procedur al and constitutional 4 deficiencies in his prior convicti ons amounted to fundamental error. See id . ¶ 9 5 (holding that in order to meet her burden, the defendant was required to prove alleged 6 procedural and constitutional deficiencies associated with prior DWI convictions 7 amounted to fundamental error). Because Defendant relies in his memorandum in 8 opposition on the lack of c ountersignature by the public defender and does not 9 demonstrate how any deficiencies in his prior convictions amounted to fundamental 10 error, we conclude the district court appropriately enhanced Defendant’s sentence. 11
{5} Therefore, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s proposed disposition, 12 we affirm. 13
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

18 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 195 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2