This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41304

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JUAN LOPEZ-BANOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

Conrad F. Perea, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur. Chief Public Defender

Santa Fe, NM

Mark A. Peralta-Silva, Assistant Appellate Defender

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

YOHALEM, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals the district court’s judgment and sentence, convicting him of 

second degree murder. Unpersuaded that Defendant’s docketing statement 

demonstrated error, we issued a notice proposing to summarily affirm. Defendant has 

responded to our notice with a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we 

remain unpersuaded and affirm. 
{2} On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 

conviction. [MIO 2-4] Our notice proposed to affirm based on evidence of Defendant’s 

multiple statements to different people that he killed Victim, felt remorse or despair, and 

wanted to kill himself; the presence of multiple stab wounds to Victim’s back, which 

caused her death; and the presence of the knife in Defendant’s chest at the scene of 

Victim’s death. [CN 3; DS unnumbered 1-2] Defendant’s response to our notice 

maintains that he did not kill his wife and that she killed herself. [MIO 3-4] Defendant 

does not dispute the facts upon which our notice relied and does not point out legal 

error in our conclusion; rather, he relies on the testimony he provided in his own 

defense. [MIO 3-4] 

{3} This is inadequate to demonstrate error in our proposed analysis. “A party 

responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out 

errors of law and fact”; the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this 

requirement. State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 

1003, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Additionally, “[c]ontrary evidence supporting acquittal does not 

provide a basis for reversal because the jury is free to reject [the d]efendant’s version of 

the facts.” State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829; see also

State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 11, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that it 

is for the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and to 

determine where the weight and credibility lie). 

{4} Defendant acknowledges that evidence supporting acquittal does not equate to 

insufficient evidence, but nevertheless requests that we reassign this case to the 

general calendar to review the sufficiency of the evidence. [MIO 4] Because the facts 

are undisputed and we see no other need to review the full record, we reject 

Defendant’s request for reassignment to the general calendar. See Taylor v. Van 

Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt., 1996-NMCA-111, ¶ 1, 122 N.M. 486, 927 P.2d 41 

(providing that when the facts are not disputed, a case may appropriately be decided on 

the summary calendar); State v. Ibarra, 1993-NMCA-040, ¶ 9, 116 N.M. 486, 864 P.2d 

302 (explaining that the Court is “free to determine the nature and extent of the trial 

record necessary to fully review the issues raised in each case and require a transcript 

in only those cases where it would advance appellate resolution of the issues raised”); 

State v. Sheldon, 1990-NMCA-039, ¶ 5, 110 N.M. 28, 791 P.2d 479 (“[R]eassignment to 

a nonsummary calendar would serve no purpose other than to allow appellate counsel 

to pick through the record. It has long been recognized by this [C]ourt that the appellate 

rules do not allow appellate counsel to pick through the record for possible error.”); 

State v. Herrera, 1972-NMCA-068, ¶ 3, 84 N.M. 46, 499 P.2d 364 (indicating that in 

order to conduct a meaningful appellate review, the record must only be of sufficient 

completeness to permit proper consideration of an appellant’s claims).

{5} For the reasons stated above and in our notice, we hold that the State presented 

sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction and affirm the district court’s 

judgment and sentence.
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

KATHERINE R. WRAY, Judge