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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 CITY OF LAS CRUCES, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,101 4 JOSEPH FULLER, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Darren M. Kugler, District Judge 8 Office of the District Attorney 9 Gerald M. Byers 10 Las Cruces, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Joseph Fuller 13 Las Cruces, NM 14 Pro se Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 17 {1} Defendant, self-represented, appeals from the district court’s judgment and 182 order partially suspending se ntence, convicting him for having an inoperable vehicle 1 contrary to Las Cruces M unicipal Code (LCMC), Sec tion 18-37. Unpersuaded that 2 Defendant demonstrated error in his doc keting statement, we issued a notice of 3 proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded to our 4 notice, opposing summary affirmance. Af ter due consideration of Defendant’s 5 arguments, we remain unpersuaded. We, therefore, affirm. 6 {2} On appeal, Defendant challenges the suffi ciency of the evidence to support his 7 conviction for having an inoperable vehi cle on grounds that the LCMC provisions 8 required that he be given notice to removethe nuisance before a criminal complaint 9 could be filed. [DS 1; MIO 1-6] Defendant contends that the language used in the 10 provisions requiring notice for abatement of a public nuisance is mandatory. [MIO 2- 11 5] The problem with Defendant’s argument is that he is conflating the abatement-of-a12 nuisance process with the enfor cement of prohibited nuisances. 13 {3} As we explained in our notice of propos ed affirmance, the notice provisions in 14 the LCMC relating to nuisances apply to municipal actions to remove or abate a 15 nuisance; those notice provisions do not apply to a violation of the ordinance 16 prohibiting a nuisance—which prohibits a person from leaving an inoperable vehicle 17 “upon any private or public property within the city for a period of time in excess of 18 72 hours.” Section 18-37. Our notice further e xplained that the penalty in Section 18- 193 45 for interfering with municipal abatement e fforts after notice is given is separately 1 and specifically addressed within the provisions relating to inoperable vehicles. 2 Defendant was punished under the “GeneralPenalty” provision, Section 1-10, for 3 “[d]oing an act that is prohibited . . . by ru le or regulation authorized by ordinance[.]” 4 Section 1-10(a)(1). Section 18-37 of the LCMC that Defendant was convicted for 5 violating is entitled, “Prohibited,” and describes inter aliathe act of leaving an 6 inoperable vehicle on property within the city for longer than 72 hours. 7 {4} We are not persuaded that violation of Section 18-37 required the City of Las 8 Cruces to notify Defendant that he had aninoperable vehicle nuisance before filing 9 a criminal complaint. Also, as we indicated in our notice, it appears that under the 10 circumstances Defendant was or should have been aware of the presence of a nuisance 11 on his property. [RP 6, 32] For the reasons st ated in our notice and in this opinion, we 12 affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence. 13 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

__________ ______________________ 15 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 16

WE CONCUR: 17

________________________________ 18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 194 ________________________________ 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2