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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-35957 4 ROBERT URQUIDI, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Josephine H. Ford, Assistant Public Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 HANISEE, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant Robert Urquidi appeals from his conviction for aggravated battery 1 (great bodily harm). We proposed to affirm in a notice of proposed summary 2 disposition, and Defendant filed a motion to amend the docketing statement and 3 memorandum in opposition (MIO) to this Court’s notice of proposed disposition. 4 Having considered the arguments raised by Defendant in his MIO and remaining 5 unpersuaded, we deny Defendant’s motion to amend his docketing statement and 6 affirm Defendant’s conviction. 7
{2} In his docketing statement, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the 8 evidence to support his conviction. [DS unpagi nated 8] We proposedto conclude that 9 the evidence presented at trial was suffici ent to support Defendant ’s conviction. [CN 10 5] In response, Defendant doe s not address the sufficiency of the evidence to support 11 his conviction [ see generally MIO]; therefore, we deem this issue abandoned. See 12 State v. Johnson , 1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (explaining that 13 when a case is decided on the summary cale ndar, an issue is deemed abandoned when 14 a party fails to respond to the proposed disposition of that issue). 15
{3} Instead of addressing the sufficiency of the evidence, Defendant seeks to amend 16 his docketing statement to argue that (1) the district court erred by refusing to instruct 17 the jury on self-defense [MIO 1-10]; (2) admission of testimony by two witnesses was 18 improper under Rule 11-403 NMRA[MIO 1, 10-12]; and (3) the district court erred 193 by enhancing his sentence based on three prior felony convictions [MIO 1, 13-14]. 1 This Court will grant a motion to amend th e docketing statement to include additional 2 issues if the motion (1) is timely, (2) states all facts material to a consideration of the 3 new issues sought to be raised, (3) explai ns how the issues were properly preserved 4 or why they may be raised for the first time on appeal, (4) demonstrates just cause by 5 explaining why the issues were not originally raised in the docketing statement, and 6 (5) complies in other respects with the appellate rules. See State v. Rael , 7 1983-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309. This Court will 8 deny motions to amend that raise issues th at are not viable, even if they allege 9 fundamental or jurisdictional error. See State v. Moore , 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 36-51, 10 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (“By viable, we mean t to describe an argument that was 11 colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any merit.”), 12 superceded by rule on other groundsas recognized in State v. Salgado , 13 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730. 14 Self-Defense Jury Instruction 15
{4} Appellate counsel asserts th at trial counsel confirmed that he argued for a self16 defense instruction and the district court denied the request. [M IO 1-2] Nevertheless, 17 appellate counsel does not direct this Court to the written instruction that was tendered 18 for the district court’s consideration. See Rule 5-608(D) NMRA (stating that to 194 preserve an error for “failure to instructon any issue, a correct written instruction 1 must be tendered before th e jury is instructed”); State v. Jernigan , 2006-NMSC-003, 2 ¶ 10, 139 N.M. 1, 127 P.3d 537 (“Ge nerally, to preserve error on a trial court’s refusal 3 to give a tendered instructi on, the [a]ppellant must tender a legally correct statement 4 of the law.”); State v. Lara , 1990-NMCA-075, ¶¶ 28-30, 110 N.M. 507, 797 P.2d 296 5 (stating that in order to premise error on a refused instruction, th e defendant must have 6 tendered a legally correct statement of the law) . Therefore, we concl ude that this issue 7 was not preserved. We note that Defendant also argues that the multiple-assailant 8 instruction should have been given in addition to the self-defense instruction, and 9 Defendant likewise does not demonstrate thatthis issue was preserved. [MIO 4] We 10 will therefore limit our review of these jury instruction issues for fundamental error. 11 See State v. Benally , 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12, 131 N.M. 258, 34 P.3d 1134 (providing 12 that if a jury instruction issue has not been preserved, this Court reviews for 13 fundamental error); see also State v. Sandoval , 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 13, 150 N.M. 224, 14 258 P.3d 1016 (providing that when this Court reviews jury instructions for 15 fundamental error, we will onl y reverse the jury verdict if doing so is “necessary to 16 prevent a miscarriage of justice” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 17
{5} “The propriety of jury instructions give n or denied is a mixed question of law 18 and fact. Mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo.” State v. Salazar , 195 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 49, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996. “For a defendant to be entitled 1 to a self-defense instruction . . . ther e need be only enough evidence to raise a 2 reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror aboutwhether the defendant lawfully acted in 3 self-defense. If any reasonable minds could differ, the instruction should be given.” 4 State v. Rudolfo , 2008-NMSC-036, ¶ 27, 144 N.M . 305, 187 P.3d 170 (citation 5 omitted). “A multiple assailant defense instruction should be issued when more than 6 one assailant is invol ved in creating an immediate danger of death or great bodily 7 harm toward the defendant.” Sandoval , 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 18. “If supported by the 8 evidence, the defendant is entitled to a se lf-defense instruction in which the jury 9 considers threatened harm from all assailants, not just the one against whom the 10 defendant may have retaliated.” State v. Cooper , 1999-NMCA-159, ¶ 11, 128 N.M. 11 428, 993 P.2d 745. 12
{6} Defendant asserts th at the State’s witnesses established sufficient evidence from 13 which the jury could infer that Defendant acted in self-defense. [MIO 3] According 14 to Defendant, there was evidence presente d that Defendant and his girlfriend were 15 sitting in Defendant’s truck when Mario Lozano, the alleged victim, and Richard 16 Suarez approached Defendant’s truck, started banging on th e windows, and were 17 yelling at Defendant. [MIO 3] Defendant asserts that based on his girlfriend’s 18 testimony, Lozano was the firs t aggressor, and “[b]ecauseof the banging and yelling, 196 she and [Defendant] were scared.” [MIO 4] While the motion to amend provides that 1 “[Defendant] is adamant that one of the two men outside opened the door, and at that 2 point he had no choice but to defend himself” [MIO 4], it does not appear that this 3 testimony was before the jury. [MIO 3-4] Wefurther note that a number of the facts 4 provided in the motion to amend are attributed to Defendant, and counsel has not 5 indicated whether these facts were actually before the district court. [ See generally 6 MIO 1-10] We note that, unlike counsel, a defe ndant is not an officer of the Court and 7 is not bound by a duty of candor towards the tribunal. We sugges t that inclusion of 8 information that has not been asserted as being before the district court is not an 9 efficient use of counsel’s or this Court’s time, and this information is of little use in 10 assessing whether this Court should grant De fendant’s motion to amend. We therefore 11 deny Defendant’s motion to amend as non-viablefor its failure to meet certain criteria 12 that establishes good cause for our allowance of such amendment. See Moore , 13 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 41-43; Rael , 1983-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 15-16 (identifying the criteria 14 required to show good cause for amending a docketing statement and indicating that 15 we will not grant motions to amend that raise non-viable issues). 16 Unfair Prejudice Resulting From Certain Testimony 17
{7} By his motion to amend, Defendant seeks to argue that the district court erred 18 in admitting evidence of Defendant’s telephone calls made from prison because they 197 were more prejudicial than probative. [MIO 10-12] While Defendant asserts that the 1 district court instructed the witnesses not to give the dates of the telephone calls, 2 Defendant has failed to show how he preserved this claim of error. We, therefore, 3 deny Defendant’s motion to amend as non-viable as to this issue. Cf. State v. 4 Rael-Gallegos , 2013-NMCA-092, ¶ 39, 308 P.3d 1016 (declining to review Rule 5 11-403 claim that was not preserved). 6 Enhancement of Sentence 7
{8} Defendant also seeks to argue that th is case must be remanded for a hearing 8 before the district court regarding the number of usable priors to enhance his sentence 9 in the present case. [MIO 13-14] While the judgment and sentence provides that 10 Defendant admitted that he is a habitual offender with three prior felony convictions, 11 each occurring in Texas [RP 154-55], Defendant now seeks to challenge one of those 12 felony convictions [MIO 13]. Even if Defe ndant did not object to the enhancements, 13 “[a] trial court does not have jurisdiction to impose anillegal sentence on a defendant 14 and, therefore, any party may challengean illegal sentence for the first time on 15 appeal.” State v. Paiz , 2011-NMSC-008, ¶ 33, 149 N.M. 412, 249 P.3d 1235. 16
{9} Defendant acknowledges that, on Augus t 13, 2004, he wa s convicted of 17 “Assault Family Violence,” which is a fe lony in Texas. [MIO 13] However, he 18 contends that without more detailed records, it is not possible to confirm that this 198 crime would have been a felony in New Mexico. [MIO 13] Additionally, he argues 1 that, contrary to the prosecutor’s asserti on below that he served six years for this 2 crime, he served two years, and that the ten-year limit expired a short time before the 3 incident in the present case. [MIO 13] Again, the facts provided in the motion to 4 amend are attributed to Defendant, and c ounsel has not indicated what evidence was 5 actually before the district court. [MIO 13-14] Without sufficient information before 6 this Court, we cannot conclude that this issue is viable. Accordingly, we deny 7 Defendant’s motion to amend his docketing statement on this basis as well. 8
{10} For the reasons stated in this opinion, as well as those provided in our notice of 9 proposed disposition, we affi rm Defendant’s conviction fo r aggravated battery (great 10 bodily harm), and we deny Defendant’s motion to amend his docketing statement. 11
{11} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 17

18 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 19