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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 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. 35,188 4 JEFFREY BLAND, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 7 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Todd B. Hotchkiss, Attorney at Law, LLC 12 Todd B. Hotchkiss 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 SUTIN, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment, sentence, and order 1 partially suspending sentence, entered following his plea of no contest to two counts 2 of fraud (over $20,000), a second degree fel ony, and two counts of securities fraud, 3 a third degree felony. This Court i ssued a calendar notice proposing summary 4 affirmance. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court’s notice of 5 proposed disposition that we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. 6
{2} Defendant contends that the district court erred by not considering mitigating 7 evidence prior to sentencing. [DS 20-22; MIO 10] Specifically, Defendant contends 8 that the district court abused its discretion when it did not read or consider thirty-eight 9 of the forty letters submitted by Defendant to the court in advance of his sentencing 10 hearing. [DS 6, 20; MIO 10] 11
{3} As a prefatory matter, we note that a party responding to a proposed disposition 12 of this Court must point out specific errors in fact or law. See Hennessy v. Duryea , 13 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly 14 held that, in summary calendar cases, th e burden is on the party opposing the proposed 15 disposition to clearly point out errors in f act or law.”). In response to this Court’s 16 calendar notice, defense counsel has restated the facts and proceedings that were 17 already presented to this Court in Defendant’s docketing statement. [MIO 1-9; DS 2- 18 19] The facts included in the memorandum in opposition do not appear to include any 193 new information as compared with the fact s and proceedings desc ribed in Defendant’s 1 docketing statement, and counsel has not pointed out whether any of the facts asserted 2 are contrary to those relied on by this Court in our notice of proposed disposition. We 3 remind counsel that the repetition of materialthat has already been presented to the 4 Court, with no indication as to which parts, if any, c ontradict the facts relied upon by 5 the district court or this C ourt or which parts, if any, are responsive to the notice of 6 proposed disposition, is unnecessary and creates additional work for both this Court 7 and the parties. We request that counselrefrain from this practice in any future 8 pleadings he may file with this Court. 9
{4} With respect to Defendant’s issue on appeal—that the district court abused its 10 sentencing discretion when it did not read thirty-eight letters submitted by 11 Defendant—we recognized in our notice of proposed disposition that NMSA 1978, 12 Section 31-18-15.1(A) (2009), requires that “[t]he court shall hold a sentencing 13 hearing to determine if mitigating or aggravating circumstances exist and take 14 whatever evidence or statements it deems w ill aid it in reaching a decision to alter a 15 basic sentence .” (Emphasis added.) [C N 4-5] We then noted that it appeared the 16 district court held a two-and-a-half-hour sentencing hearing, at which time it took into 17 consideration: (1) Defendant’s sentencing memorandum, which provided background 18 on Defendant, outlined his health issues, su mmarized the thirty-eight letters from his 194 friends and family as “prais[ing Defendant’s] character as a selfless, honorable, eager 1 to assist man who has dedicated his life to the service of others” and stated that “each 2 of the letter writers discuss[es] their strong admiration, respect, and love for 3 [Defendant] as they are each discussing the individual ways in which [Defendant] has 4 helped each of them, personally and signifi cantly” [CN 3-4]; (2) argument of defense 5 counsel, directed at showing the district court that Defendant “is of high moral 6 character[,]” a religious man, with the l ove of highly educated people, as well as 7 directed at highlighting Defe ndant’s medical issues and Defendant’s desire and efforts 8 to pay the victim back [CN 4]; and (3) testimony by Defendant and his wife. [CN 4] 9 We also observed in our calendar notice that it appeared that defense counsel touched 10 on some of the letters specifically during his argument, describing for the district court 11 the contents of a letter from Defendant’ s pastor and letters from Dr. Randy Lee, 12 Patricia Hodgins, and Kent Mikkelsen. [CN 4] 13
{5} Defendant continues to argue that—des pite the mitigation evidence presented 14 to the district court through the sentencing memorandum, argument of counsel, and 15 Defendant’s allocution—the district court di d not fulfill its duty to consider mitigating 16 evidence. [MIO 17] See State v. Sotelo , 2013-NMCA-028, ¶ 45, 296 P.3d 1232 17 (holding that the district court has an ob ligation to consider mitigating factors in 18 sentencing). In essence, Defendant claims th at the district court’ s failure to read each 195 and every letter submitted by him equates to a failure to consider mitigating 1 circumstances. [MIO 17] Notably, howev er, Defendant does not address in his 2 memorandum in opposition the distinction we observed in ourcalendar notice 3 between the present case and Sotelo , a case in which the court did not consider any 4 mitigation evidence whatsoever. [CN 3] Furthermore, we also note that Defendant has 5 not provided us with authority to support his position. Where a party cites no authority 6 to support an argument, the appellate courts may assume no such authority exists. In 7 re Adoption of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329. 8
{6} Instead, in his memorandum in opposition, Defendant relies in large part on due 9 process and generalized notions of fairness to support his contention that the district 10 court was obligated to readeach and every letter submitte d by him prior to imposing 11 sentence. [ See generallyMIO 14-22] At the outset, we agree with Defendant that “the 12 discretion of the sentencing judge in New Mexico has always b een subject to the 13 requirements of due pro cess.” [MIO 15 (quoting State v. Montoya , 1978-NMCA-009, 14 ¶ 7, 91 N.M. 425, 575 P.2d 609)] However, weare not convinced that the district 15 court’s sentencing in this case was unfair to Defendant or otherwise violated due 16 process. See State v. Wildgrube , 2003-NMCA-108, ¶¶ 39, 41, 134 N.M. 262, 75 P.3d 17 862 (stating that due pro cess at sentencing require s notice and a meaningful 18 opportunity to be heard). As we have noted in our calendar notice and throughout this 196 Opinion, Defendant was give n a two-and-a-half-hour sentencing hearing at which he 1 had the opportunity to speak to the district court on the issue of his sentencing; the 2 district court read and considered De fendant’s sentencing memorandum containing 3 mitigating circumstances such as his health , his character, and his desire and efforts 4 to make the victim whole; the districtcourt read and considered letters from 5 Defendant and his wife; the district c ourt heard and considered the testimony of 6 Defendant’s wife; and defense counsel had the opportunity to make a sentencing 7 argument, and took advantage of that opportunity throughout the two-and-a-half-hour 8 hearing; and finally, the ba sic substance of the thirty-eight unread letters was 9 presented to the district court through the sentencing memorandum and argument of 10 counsel. In light of the foregoing, we are equally unpersuaded that Defendant has 11 demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the district court’s failure to read each and 12 every letter. See State v. Gardner , 2003-NMCA-107, ¶ 42, 134 N.M. 294, 76 P.3d 47 13 (holding that a defendant’s sentence will notbe overturned for a claimed due process 14 violation unless the defendant demonstrates that he or she was prejudiced by the 15 procedure employed by the sentencing court). 16
{7} We are similarly not convinced by the out-of-jurisdiction case law cited in 17 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition. [ See generally MIO 18-22] We note that the 18 cases cited are inapposite to th e issue in the present case, inthat those cases dealt with 197 situations wherein the lower court was not aware of even the s ubstance of the letters 1 at issue, and in fact, in some of the cases the letters had not yet been collected by the 2 defense. Hence, we are not persuaded by those cases that the district court erred in the 3 present case. See Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. , 1993-NMSC-035, ¶ 15, 115 4 N.M. 622, 857 P.2d 22 (“[C]ases are not authority fo r propositions not considered.” 5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 6
{8} To the extent that Defendant is ar guing in his memorandum in opposition that 7 a comment by the district judge during Defendant’s sentencing hearing that his father 8 “never recovered from losing his retirement savings in the stock market” should be 9 a factor to consider in de termining the fairness of the sentencing proceeding in light 10 of the fact that the court di d not read the thirty-eight letters [MIO 22-23]—a point not 11 raised in Defendant’s docketing statement—we note that aside from an inapposite out12 of-jurisdiction case, Defendant has provide d this Court with no authority to support 13 his position that the district court’s single statement provides a basis for reversal on 14 abuse of discretion grounds. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Defendant’s 15 contention. See In re Adoption of Doe , 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2 (stating that where a 16 party cites no authority to support an argument, the appellate courts may assume no 17 such authority exists). 188 {9} Finally, as we noted in our calendar notice, although Defendant was ultimately 1 sentenced to three years of incarceration, as opposed to the fully probated sentence he 2 requested, “there is no abuse of discre tion when mitigating circumstances are 3 considered and rejected.” [CN 5] Sotelo , 2013-NMCA-028, ¶ 45. Consequently, under 4 the circumstances of this case, we are not convinced that the district court abused its 5 sentencing discretion by failing to read eachand every letter s ubmitted by Defendant. 6
{10} Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Opinion, as well as those provided in 7 our calendar notice, we affirm. 8
{11} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

__________________________________ 10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11

WE CONCUR: 12

_______________________________ 13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14

_______________________________ 15 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 16