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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,360 4 CARLOS B. LUCERO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 7 Matthew J. Sandoval, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Sergio J. Viscoli, Assi stant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 GARCIA, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant-Appellant Carlos Lucero (Def endant) appeals from his convictions 182 for CSCM. We previously i ssued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which 1 we proposed to uphold the convictions. De fendant has filed a joint memorandum in 2 opposition and motion to amend the docketing statement, together with a motion to 3 supplement the record. After due consider ation, we deny the motions, and affirm. 4 {2} We will begin our discussion with the i ssues originally raised in the docketing 5 statement. Because we find nothing in the memorandum in opposition which could 6 be said to renew the claim of ineffec tive assistance of counsel, that argument is 7 deemed abandoned. See generally State v. Billy M., 1987-NMCA-080, ¶ 2, 106 N.M. 8 123, 739 P.2d 992 (observing that an issue listed in the docketing statement but not 9 addressed in the memorandum in opposition is deemed abandoned). 10 {3} Although Defendant does not explicitly renew his challenge to the sufficiency 11 of the evidence, his lengthy recitation of th e facts suggests that he may not intend to 12 abandon this argument. We will therefore briefly address it. As we previously 13 described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, [CN 2-3] the State presented 14 testimony in support of all of the essential el ements of both of th e offenses at issue. 15 In his memorandum in opposition Defendant doe s not dispute this. Instead, he focuses 16 on perceived inconsistencies and omissions in the testimony of the State’s various 17 witnesses, as well as conflicting evidence th at was presented, principally through his 18 own testimony. [MIO 1-17] However, this evidence “does not provide a basis for 193 reversal[,] because the jury [was] free to reject Defendant ’s version of the facts.” State 1 v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829; see also State v. Foxen , 2 2001-NMCA-061, ¶ 17, 130 N.M. 670, 29 P.3d 1071 (noting that “the jury was not 3 obligated to believe Defendant’s testimony, to disbelieve or discount conflicting 4 testimony, or to adopt Defendant’s view”). We therefore uphold Defendant’s 5 convictions against his challenge tothe sufficiency of the evidence. 6 {5} We turn next to Defendant’s motion to amend the docketing statement, by 7 which Defendant seeks to raise two additional issues. [MIO 18-27] Such a motion 8 may only be granted if it is timely, and if the issues are viable. See State v. Moore , 9 1989-NMCA-073, ¶ 42, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91. For the reasons that follow, we 10 conclude that these requirements have not been met. 11 {5} First, Defendant contends that the compulsory joinder rule was violated when 12 he was tried on the underlying charges after previously having been acquitted on a 13 separate, but similar, charge. [MIO 18-25] Second and relatedly, Defendant claims 14 that double jeopardy principles should haveprecluded the State from prosecuting him 15 for one of the counts of CSCM in this case, given that the inci dent “may very well 16 have described the same incident” at issue in the first trial. [MIO 25-27] 17 {6} Defendant failed to raise either issue below. [MIO 18] Nevertheless, Defendant 18 urges the Court to consider the merits of his arguments on grounds that the New 194 Mexico Supreme Court has previously rais ed compulsory joinder issues sua sponte, 1 and on grounds that double jeopardy arguments may be raised at any time. [MIO 18] 2 However, neither of the issues that Defendant seeks to raise can be evaluated without 3 a careful consideration of the factual predi cate associated with the CSCM charge for 4 which he was previously acquitted, and the record before us does not provide 5 sufficient information about that charge. “Without a factual basis in the record, even 6 a double-jeopardy claim must be rejected.” State v. Jensen , 1998-NMCA-034, ¶ 18, 7 124 N.M. 726, 955 P.2d 195; see State v. Wood, 1994-NMCA-060, ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 8 682, 875 P.2d 1113 (observing that although “a double jeopardy defense can be raised 9 at any time, either before or after judgment, a factual basis must appear in the record 10 in order to support such claim”). 11 {7} In apparent recognition of the foregoi ng, Defendant has moved this Court to 12 supplement the record “with the [r]ecord [p ]roper and [t]ranscripts from [Defendant’s] 13 related case,” in order to allow fuller development of “the possibility of a double 14 jeopardy argument as well as an argument under the joinder rule[.]” [Mot. 1] 15 Alternatively, Defendants suggest s that we take judicial no tice of the district court’s 16 files in that case. [Mot. 2] We are disinclin ed to take such extraordinary measures to 17 entertain speculation. See, e.g., Wood , 1994-NMCA-060, ¶ 19 (declining to consider 18 a double jeopardy argument, after similarly denying a motion to supplement the record 195 to include prior criminal proceedings); and see generally State v. Turner , 1 1970-NMCA-054, ¶ 25, 81 N.M. 571, 469 P.2d 720 (“We take judicial notice of the 2 records on file in this court .” (emphasis added)). We therefore deny the motion to 3 supplement, as well as the motion to amend. 4 {9} In closing, we note that habeas proceedings appear to constitute the appropriate 5 avenue for any further development of th e arguments Defendant seeks to advance. 6 See State v. Graham, 2003-NMCA-127, ¶ 8, 134 N.M . 613, 81 P.3d 556 (observing 7 parenthetically that “when the record does not support the factual basis for a 8 contention that may be raised for the first time on appeal, the preferred method of 9 resolution of the issue is in habeas corpus proceedings”); and see, e.g., Kersey v. 10 Hatch , 2010-NMSC-020, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P. 3d 683 (addressing a double jeopardy 11 argument on review of habeas proceedings). 12 {9} For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 13 summary disposition, Defendant’s convictions are AFFIRMED. 14 {10} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

__________________ ______________ 16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

_______________________________ 19 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 206 _______________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2