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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-36819 4 ELOY ROCHA 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 7 Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 L. Helen Bennett, P.C. 12 Linda Helen Bennett 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 ZAMORA, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant Eloy Rocha appeals from his convictions for abuse of a child, 18 leaving the scene of an accident involving injury, and reckless driving. Unpersuaded 192 that Defendant established error, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, 1 proposing to affirm. Defendant has res ponded to our notice with a memorandum in 2 opposition. We have considered Defendant’s response and remain unpersuaded. We 3 affirm. 4 {2} Defendant has raised four issues on appeal, contending that the district court 5 erred by (1) denying his motion to dismiss for violation of the right to a speedy trial, 6 (2) erroneously admitting statements by the victim regarding her doctor’s diagnosis, 7 (3) erroneously admitting a video interrogation of Defendant, which included his 8 statement that he had a suspended drive r’s license, and (4) denying his motion for a 9 continuance, which deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. [DS 6] In 10 response to our notice, Defendant does not provide us withany new factual or legal 11 argument to persuade us that our proposed analysis of Issues (1) through (3) was 12 incorrect. Instead, Defendant seeks to re serve these issues for post-conviction 13 proceedings to develop the necessary fact s to support his claims. [MIO 4-5] Because 14 the facts were not sufficiently developed in th is Court, we affirm for the reasons in our 15 notice. 16 {3} Defendant’s response to our notice pursues his contention that the district 17 court’s denial of his motion for a continuance deprived him of effective assistance of 183 counsel, under the factors set forth in State v. Torres , 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 10, 127 1 N.M. 20, 976 P.2d 20. [MIO 1-4] 2 {4} The Torresfactors include “the length of the requested delay, the likelihood 3 that a delay would accomplish the movant’s objectives, the existence of previous 4 continuances in the same matter, the degree of inconvenience to the parties and the 5 court, the legitimacy of the motives in reque sting the delay, the fault of the movant in 6 causing a need for the delay, and the prej udice to the movant in denying the motion.” 7 Id. “The grant or denial of a motion for a continuance rests within the sound discretion 8 of the trial court, and the bur den of establishing an abuse of discretion rests with the 9 defendant.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 10 {5} Defendant’s response does not provide th is Court with definitive or specific 11 statements of the length of the delay sought, the reasons for the continuance, or the 12 prejudice to Defendant in denying the motion. Defendant states that“[a] mere month 13 or two would very likely have sufficed.” [M IO 3] He states that the reason for the 14 continuance stemmed from the over-assignmen t of cases in the public defender’s 15 office, claiming that “it should be inferred that a continuance would have given trial 16 counsel necessary breathing room to properly develop the case and provide the 17 constitutionally adequate representation to which [Defe ndant] was entitled.” [MIO 3] 18 Defendant does not explain how the denial of a continuance deprived him of effective 194 assistance of counsel or otherwise affect ed his defense. Defendant’s response is 1 slightly more specific about the various delays in this case, admitting that his 2 termination from the pre-prosecution diversi on program caused delay. [MIO 3] Our 3 notice observed that there were numerous defense-caused delays and other defense4 requested continuances, which also cause d considerable delay in the twenty-six 5 months it took to resolve this case. [CN 4-6] Defendant does not explain whether or 6 why the State may have opposed his motion for a continuance. 7 {6} Our case law requires a more specific and definitive showing to establish abuse 8 of discretion in the denial of a continuance. See State v. Gallegos , 2011-NMSC-027, 9 ¶¶ 67-70, 149 N.M. 704, 254 P.3d 655 (considering the failure of trial counsel to 10 identify the time needed, to demonstrate th at the delay would achieve the defense’s 11 goals, and to establish prejudice in concludi ng that the defendant did not establish an 12 abuse of discretion); see also State v. Aragon , 2009-NMCA-102, ¶¶ 36, 38, 40-41, 147 13 N.M. 26, 216 P.3d 276 (considering the state’s vigorous opposition to the 14 continuance, the defense’s failure to iden tify the time needed to prepare for trial or 15 how the additional time would permit the defendant to prepare for trial, and 16 considering that other continuances were gr anted to the defense, and that, even though 17 the defense suffered prejudice in defense c ounsel’s failure to obtain an expert and 18 interview the state’s expert , the defendant had time to accomplish these goals and did 195 not establish an abuse of discretion on balance); cf. State v. Salazar , 2007-NMSC-004, 1 ¶¶ 21-23, 141 N.M. 148, 152 P.3d 135 (holding thatthe denial of a continuance was 2 an abuse of discretion where no previous c ontinuances were granted, the State did not 3 oppose this continuance, and the defendantcould not properly prepare a defense, 4 because the denial prohibited the defendant from interviewing all of the witnesses, 5 have the victim evaluated, and present witnesses at trial). 6 {7} Defendant does not de scribe what additional steps defense counsel needed to 7 take to prepare a defense, nor how the deni al of a continuance actually affected his 8 defense, nor whether or why the State oppos ed his motion for continuance. Thus, we 9 cannot say that, on balance, the district court abused its di scretion. If Defendant 10 wishes to pursue this issue further, he should do so in post-conviction proceedings 11 where he could develop the facts necessary for his claim. 12 {8} For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice, we hold that Defendant 13 has not established error, and affirm th e district court’s judgment and sentence. 14 {9} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

______________________________ 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

_____________________________ 19 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 206 ________________________________ 1 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 2