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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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. 35,221 4 RUBEN FLOREZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 7 William G. W. Schoobridge, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender 13 B. Douglas Wood III, Assi stant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant seeks review of his convic tions for three counts of assault on a 1 peace officer. This Court issu ed a notice of proposed disposition proposing to dismiss 2 Defendant’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. De fendant has filed a 3 memorandum opposing this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, which we have 4 duly considered. Unpersuaded, wedismiss Defendant’s appeal. 5
{2} As we pointed out in this Court’s no tice, the jury’s verdict was entered on 6 August 3, 2015, and on October 7, 2015, Defendant file d a motion for new trial on the 7 grounds of newly discovered evidence. We noted that the motion was scheduled to be 8 addressed at the sentencing hearing, but that a judgment and sentence was entered on 9 October 22, 2015, and nothing in the notice e xpressly disposed of the motion for new 10 trial. As a result, we proposed to conclude that, in the absence of an order expressly 11 disposing of Defendant’s motion for new trial, there was not a final order from which 12 Defendant could appeal. [CN 1] 13
{3} In support of our proposed disposition, we noted that our precedent 14 acknowledged that the “timely filing of a post-judgment motion pursuant to Rule 15 5-801 [NMRA] suspends the finality of the preceding judgment and sentence until 16 such time as a written ruling upon the motion is entered.” See State v. Romero , 17 2014-NMCA-063, ¶ 8, 327 P.3d 525. Further, we suggested that there exists little 18 basis for treating a motion for new trial file d prior to the entry of a final judgment or 193 within thirty days of a final judgment any differently from a motion filed pursuant to 1 Rule 5-801. Thus, we suggested that if a motion for new trial based on newly 2 discovered evidence is filed within thirty days of what would otherwise be a final 3 judgment, then the motion must be expressl y ruled on before juri sdiction is conveyed 4 to this Court. 5
{4} In response, Defendant contends that the motion for new trial was expressly 6 ruled on. In support of his argument, Defendant directs this Court to page 76 of the 7 record proper. Defendant assert s that “[t]he district court denied the motion for a new 8 trial on October 19, 2015[,] in a document simply titled ‘COURT PROCEEDINGS’ 9 which was filed in the distri ct court on October 21, 2015[,] and made a part of the 10 record proper for this appeal thereafter.” [MIO 1] 11
{5} Having reviewed this document, we note that it is not an order by a judge 12 expressly ruling on the motion, but merely a clerical notation in the record reflecting 13 the judge’s oral ruling. [RP 76] As such, it is insufficient to convey the finality 14 necessary to support the current appeal. See Rule 12-201(D)(1) NMRA (providing 15 that, when a post-judgment motion is filed, “thefull time prescribed in this rule for the 16 filing of the notice of appeal shall commen ce to run and be computed from the filing 17 of an order expressly disposing of the last suchremaining motion” (emphasis added)); 18 Harrison v. ICX, Ill.-Cal. Express, Inc. , 1982-NMCA-089, ¶ 4, 98 N.M. 247, 647 P.2d 194 880 (“[A]ppeals will lie only from a formal written order or judgment signed by the 1 judge and filed in the case, or entered upon the records of the court and signed by the 2 judge thereof.” (internal quotati on marks and citation omitted)), abrogated on other 3 grounds by Martinez v. Friede , 2004-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 25- 26, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 4 596. 5
{6} Accordingly, we dismiss Defendant’s appeal as prematurely filed. 6
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

_______________________________________ 8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12

13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14