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citation of unpublished decisions.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-41088

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RODNEY GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY

Jane Shuler Gray, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Santa Fe, NM

Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

YOHALEM, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals from a district court order revoking his probation. We issued a 

calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum in 

opposition, in which he raises a new issue, which we treat as a motion to amend. We 

deny the motion and affirm the district court.

Motion to Amend
{2} In cases assigned to the summary calendar, this Court will grant a motion to 

amend the docketing statement to include additional issues if the motion (1) is timely, 

(2) states all facts material to a consideration of the new issues sought to be raised, (3) 

explains how the issues were properly preserved or why they may be raised for the first

time on appeal, (4) demonstrates just cause by explaining why the issues were not 

originally raised in the docketing statement, and (5) complies in other respects with the 

appellate rules. See State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081, ¶ 15, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309. 

This Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they 

allege fundamental or jurisdictional error. See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, ¶ 42, 

109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91, overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado, 1991-

NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730.

{3} Here, Defendant is attempting to raise the issue of whether his underlying 

sentence is illegal. [MIO 2] Defendant points out that his plea agreement did not rule out 

a habitual enhancement of his sentence, and Defendant admitted to the prior conviction. 

[RP 68] If imposed, a habitual enhancement would not be subject to suspension or 

deferment. [MIO 2] See NMSA 1978, § 31-18-17 (2003). Defendant’s argument is that 

the district court did not comply with this mandatory provision when it did not impose an 

actual sentence at the time of the original sentence. [RP 82] However, the original 

sentence was the product of a plea agreement, where the State had agreed to hold off 

seeking habitual enhancement, reserving the right to bring a supplemental information 

in the event that Defendant violated probation. [RP 68] This reservation is a common 

practice, and reflects the State’s broad charging discretion. See State v. Leyba, 2009-

NMCA-030, ¶ 21, 145 N.M. 712, 204 P.3d 37 (stating that “the [s]tate [has] broad 

discretion to seek habitual offender enhancement[s]”). As such, we do not deem 

Defendant’s new issue to be viable.

Issue in the Docketing Statement

{4} Defendant’s sole issue in the docketing statement challenged the sufficiency of 

the evidence to support the revocation of probation. Our calendar notice proposed to 

affirm. Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not challenge the proposed 

affirmance. We therefore deem the issue to be abandoned. See State v. Johnson, 

1988-NMCA-029, ¶ 8, 107 N.M. 356, 758 P.2d 306 (explaining that when a case is 

decided on the summary calendar, an issue is deemed abandoned when a party fails to 

respond to the proposed disposition of that issue).

CONCLUSION

{5} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.

{6} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

WE CONCUR:
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge