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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from 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-36383 4 LEONARD SANCHEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Benjamin Chavez, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 GARCIA, Judge. 18 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s affirmance of his convictions after 192 a bench trial in metropolitan court fo r driving while under the influence of 1 intoxicating liquor and speeding. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition 2 in which we proposed to affirm. Defe ndant has filed a memorandum in opposition, 3 which we have duly considered . Unpersuaded, we affirm. 4 {2} Defendant raised the same issues in his appeal to this Court as he did in his on5 record appeal to the district court: (1) wh ether there was sufficient evidence to convict 6 Defendant of DWI (impaired to the slightest degree); and (2) whether there was 7 sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of DWI (per se). [DS 5; RP 43] The district 8 court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt on the 9 charge of DWI (impaired to the slightest degree) and determinedthat it consequently 10 need not resolve the question of the suffici ency of the evidence on the charge of DWI 11 (per se). [RP 66-68] We proposed in our cal endar notice to agree with and adopt the 12 district court’s well-reasoned analysis as our own for purposes of this appeal. [CN 2] 13 {3} Defendant’s memorandum in opposition doe s not point to any specific errors 14 in fact or in law in our calendar noti ce or in the district court’s opinion. See Hennessy 15 v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have 16 repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing 17 the proposed disposition to clearly point outerrors in fact or law.”). Instead, 18 Defendant continues to argue that the ev idence presented was insufficient to support 193 a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [MIO 1] 1 {4} We conclude that Defendant has not me t his burden to clearly demonstrate that 2 the metropolitan court erred in this case. See State v. Aragon , 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 3 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the 4 rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of 5 showing such error). Accordingly, for th e reasons stated above, as well as those 6 provided in our calendar notice and in th e district court’s opinion, we affirm. 7 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________ ______________ 9 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

_______________________________ 12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 13

_______________________________ 14 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 15