This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,601 9 ROBERT GONZALO MEDINA, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 12 Freddie J. Romero, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Chief Public Defender 17 Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 CASTILLO, Chief Judge. 222 On motion for rehearing, the opinion file d February 1, 2011, is withdrawn, and 1 the following opinion is substituted in its place. The motion for rehearing is otherwise 2 denied. 3 Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. We issued a calendar notice 4 proposing to affirm. Defendant has file d a memorandum in opposition to our calendar 5 notice. We have duly considered the memorandum in opposition, but we are not 6 persuaded by Defendant’s arguments. We therefore affirm. 7 In our calendar notice, weaddressed Defendant’s cl aims that probation was not 8 included in the plea agreement, and that the revocation of probation amounted to an 9 increase in his sentence. In response, Defendant concedes that the judgment and 10 sentence was not invalid and concedes thatthe district court was entitled to place 11 Defendant on probation based on the suspension of all or part of the sentence. 12 However, Defendant continues to claim that the addition of probation in the judgment 13 and sentence was treated by Defendant as “additional conditi ons of parole,” and the 14 two orders of probation, signed by Defendant after his release from prison, amounted 15 to an increase in his sentence, making his sentence illegal. 16 In the memorandum in opposition, Defendant raises a number of arguments that 17 were not properly preserved. For exampl e, Defendant includes arguments regarding 18 the wording in the judgment and sentence, the lack of a formal proceeding with regard 193 to the orders of probation signed by Defendant, and claims th at Defendant was 1 coerced into signing the probation orders and into agreeing that he understood them 2 without advice from an attorney. In order to preserve an issue for appeal, defendant 3 must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of 4 the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon. State v. Varela , 1999- 5 NMSC-045, ¶ 25, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280. The court will not search the record 6 to find whether an issue was preserved wh ere defendant did not refer the court to 7 appropriate transcript references. See State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 44, 126 N.M. 8 438, 971 P.2d 829. We will not address any arguments that were not properly 9 preserved in the district court. 10 Even if the arguments were properly preserved and included in the record 11 below, we affirm the decisi on of the district court. The judgment and sentence 12 included a provision that a portion of the underlying sentence be suspended. [RP 46] 13 The judgment stated, “[a]s a condition of the probation and the suspension, the 14 Defendant is required to comply with the standard conditions of probation and with” 15 certain special conditions. [Id.] As indi cated by the language in the judgment and as 16 permitted under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20- 5 (2003), the district court imposed 17 probation after suspending a portion of the sentence. Section 31-20-5(A), limits the 18 total period of probation to fi ve years. When Defendant was released from prison, he 194 signed an order of probation that included a term of less than five years from the date 1 of his release. [RP 50] After violating his probation, Defendant signed an amended 2 order of probation that included a term of less than five years. [RP 98] For both 3 orders, Defendant signed a statement that he read and understood the terms of the 4 probation orders. Defendant did not attempt to change the probation requirement 5 included in the judgment and sentence, and he did not challengethe probation orders 6 presented to him. In fact, Defendant si gned both probation orders agreeing to abide 7 by probation terms set out in those orders . The district court did not abuse its 8 discretion in determining that Defendant violated the terms of his probation. See State 9 v. Phillips , 2006-NMCA-001, ¶ 10, 138 N.M. 730, 126 P.3d 546. 10 For the reasons discussed in this opini on and in our calendar notice, we affirm 11 the district court’s decision. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16

__________________________________ 17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 185 __________________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2