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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-36107 4 ABRAN RIVAS, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 Freddie J. Romero, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennet J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Aja Oishi, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 HANISEE, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant-Appellant Abran Rivas (“Defendant”) appeals from his convictions 18 of second degree kidnaping and aggravatedbattery against a household member. We 19 previously issued a notice of proposed su mmary disposition in which we proposed to 202 affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. Af ter due consideration, we 1 remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 2 {2} The pertinent background information was set forth in the notice of proposed 3 summary disposition. We will avoid undue repetition here, and focus instead on the 4 content of the memorandum in opposition. 5 {3} In the memorandum in opposition, Defendantreiterates his pos ition that he was 6 denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. [MIO 1, 2-4] Defendant asserts that 7 his attorney was ineffective in recommending that he pleadno contest to the charges. 8 [Id.] As we stated in our calendar notice, however, “if a defendant fails to file a 9 motion to withdraw a plea in the district court, he or she cannot attack the plea for the 10 first time on direct appeal” and must seek relief in collateral proceedings. State v. 11 Andazola , 2003-NMCA-146, ¶ 25, 134 N.M . 710, 82 P.3d 77. Defendant 12 acknowledges that he did not so move belo w, but asserts that this failure was itself 13 ineffective assistance of counsel. [MIO 4] Because the latter argument involves facts 14 not in the record on appeal, wedo not consider it further. See State v. Crocco , 15 2014-NMSC-016, ¶ 14, 327 P.3d 1068 (“If facts n ecessary to a full determination are 16 not part of the record, an ineffective assistance claim is more properly brought through 17 a habeas corpus petition.”). 183 {4} Defendant further argues that his attorn ey was ineffective at sentencing because 1 “she did not cross-examine the alleged vi ctim about inconsis tencies between the 2 statements in the affidavit accompanying the arrest warrant and the testimony the 3 alleged victim gave at sentencing.” [MIO3] According to th e docketing statement, 4 however, the victim did not testify at sentencing. [DS 4-5] Therefore, we hold that 5 Defendant’s argument lack s a factual premise. See Udall v. Townsend , 1998-NMCA6 162, ¶ 3, 126 N.M. 251, 968 P.2d 341 (stati ng that we will accept the factual 7 assertions in the docketing statement unle ss the record on appeal shows otherwise). 8 In any event, the extent to which an attorney cross-examin es a witness is a matter of 9 tactics and strategy which we will not second-guess on appeal. See State v. Trejo , 10 1972-NMCA-019, ¶¶ 13-14, 83 N.M. 511, 494 P.2d 173 (rejecting the defendant’s 11 claim of ineffective assistance of counselpremised on deficiently conducted cross12 examination). 13 {5} Defendant also argues for the first ti me that his kidnapi ng conviction is not 14 supported by substantial evidence. [MIO 1; DS 6] We construe this portion of the 15 memorandum in opposition as a motion to ame nd the docketing statement. We further 16 conclude that the motion raises an issu e that is not viable and deny the same. See State 17 v. Moore , 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (holding that this 18 Court will deny motions to amend a docketing statement that raise issues that are not 194 viable, even if they allege f undamental or jurisdictional error), superceded by rule on 1 other grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado , 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 2 817 P.2d 730. Specifically, because Defendant pled no contest to kidnaping below, 3 and because we decline to review the validity of his plea for the first time on appeal, 4 supra , we hold that any challenge s to the sufficiency of th e evidence in support of that 5 conviction have been waived. See State v. Hodge , 1994-NMSC-087, ¶ 14, 118 N.M. 6 410, 882 P.2d 087 (“[A] voluntary [no contest] plea ordinarily constitutes a waiver of 7 the defendant’s right to appeal his convi ction on other than jurisdictional grounds.”). 8 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in the notice of proposed 9 summary disposition, we affirm. 10 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

_____________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13

WE CONCUR: 14

__________________________________ 15 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 16

__________________________________ 175 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 1