This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 TOWN OF TAOS, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4

v. NO. 32,922 5 JEFFREY NORTHRUP, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 8 John M. Paternoster, District Judge 9 C. Brian James 10 Taos, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Justin B. Lea 13 Taos, NM 14 for Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 GARCIA, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment and sentence, convicting 1 him for criminal trespass under the provision of the Taos Municipal Code in effect at 2 the time of the incident here. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, 3 proposing to affirm. Defendant has file d a response to our notice. We are not 4 persuaded by Defendant’s arguments, and affirm. 5 {2} On appeal, Defendant (1) contends that the district court applied an improper 6 legal definition of malicious intent, (2) co mplains that the district court made no 7 findings about unlawfulness, and (3) argues that the court improperly shifted the 8 burden onto Defendant to prove that there wa s no legal justification or excuse for his 9 unauthorized entry. [DS 6] Our notice proposedto hold that the district court applied 10 the correct legal standard for maliciousness, relying on State v. Ruiz , 1980-NMCA11 123, ¶ 48, 94 N.M. 771, 617 P.2d 160, and analyzed Defendant’s remaining 12 contentions for sufficiency of the evidence. 13 {3} In response to our notice, Defendant a sserts that our notice did not address 14 whether the district court used the appropriate legal definition of maliciousness. [MIO 15 3] Our notice set forth the correct legal standard for maliciousness as used in the 16 context of criminal trespass, see id. , and proposed to hold that the district court 17 applied the correct legal standard, as shown in its written decision. [RP 224] 183 Defendant does not persuade us that the notice omitted any analysis or that our 1 conclusion was incorrect. 2 {4} As for this Court’s proposed disposition for Defendant’s issues relating to the 3 unlawfulness of Defendant’s entry, Defendant responds that our analysis is circular 4 and shifts the burden to Defe ndant. [MIO 1-2] We are not persuaded that we or the 5 district court erred in our application of the law to the evidence presented. We 6 continue to believe that the district court made a finding as to unlawfulness by 7 convicting Defendant for criminal trespass and rejecting his argument that he was 8 acting out of concern for the safety of the children. Put another way, we are not 9 persuaded by Defendant’s implication that it is otherwise lawful to “with malicious 10 intent, enter[] or remain[] upon the lands of another knowing that such consent to 11 enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the owner or occupant thereof,” without the 12 presence of a legal cause or excuse. [D S 2 (quoting the former version of Taos 13 Municipal Code, § 9.28.020). See Ruiz , 1980-NMCA-123, ¶ 44 (“[C]riminal trespass 14 requires an unlawful entry knowing that consent to enter is denied or withdrawn. An 15 unlawful entry is an entry not authorized by law, without excuse or justification.”). 16 We continue to rely on the statement in Ruiz , indicating that “the absence of cause or 17 excuse is covered in the [former] crimin al trespass statute by the word ‘unlawful.’” 18 Id. ¶ 47. Because there was ample evidence to establish that Defendant entered the 194 property at issue, knowing that consent to do so was withdrawn, and did so with 1 malicious intent and no cause or excu se, we hold that sufficient evidence was 2 presented to support his conviction for criminal trespass. 3 {5} For the reasons stated in our notice and inthis Opinion, we affirm the district 4 court’s judgment and sentence. 5 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 8

WE CONCUR: 9

10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11

12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13