This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,948 9 PAUL SALAS, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY 12 Don Maddox, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Robert E. Tangora, L.L.C. 17 Robert E. Tangora 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 Defendant appeals from a third amended judgment and sentence. We issued a 222 calendar notice proposing summary dismissa l. Defendant has filed a memorandum 1 in opposition, which we have duly consider ed. Because we remain unpersuaded that 2 the district court erred, we affirm. 3 Defendant raised eight issues in his docketing statement. In his memorandum 4 in opposition, Defendant only renews one i ssue: whether the district court illegally 5 sentenced Defendant by impr operly using one of Defendant’s prior convictions to 6 both enhance his sentence under the habitual offender statute and under the felon in 7 possession statute. [MIO 3] As a result, all of the other issues have been abandoned. 8 See State v. Martinez , 97 N.M. 585, 642 P.2d 188 (Ct. A pp.1982) (holding that issues 9 that are not renewed in a memorandum in opposition are deemed abandoned). 10 Defendant raises this issue pursuant to State v. Franklin , 78 N.M. 127, 129, 428 P.2d 11 982, 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer , 103 N.M. 655, 658-60, 712 P. 2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 12 1985). 13 We affirm. As we stated in our noti ce of proposed summary disposition, there 14 is no indication in the record that the district court used the same prior conviction to 15 enhance Defendant’s senten ce under the habitual offende r statute and the felon in 16 possession statute. Rather, the record indi cates that Defendant had prior convictions 17 in SF-85-26(CR) and SF-85-28(CR) for armed robbery and in CR-99-00037 for 183 possession of methamphetamine. [RP 561] The conviction in SF-85-26 (CR) could 1 be used to support the convi ction for possession of a fi rearm by a felon, and the 2 convictions in SF-85-28(CR) and CR-99-00037, could by used to establish that 3 Defendant had two prior c onvictions under the habitual offender statute. See State v. 4 Calvillo , 112 N.M. 140, 142, 812 P.2d 794, 796 (Ct. App. 1991) (stating that the State 5 is not prevented from using distinct fel onies obtained in the same judgment and 6 sentence for the separate purposes of e nhancement under the felon in possession 7 statute and the general habitual offe nder statute). Nothing in Defendant’s 8 memorandum in opposition persuades us that our initial proposed disposition of this 9 issue is incorrect. 10 For these reasons, we affirm the district court. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 17 184 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2