Court Opinion

ID: 9940491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 17:09:13.196133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:54.965984
License: Public Domain

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citation of unpublished decisions.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 computer-
generated 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-41425

CITY OF ALAMOGORDO,

      Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CARL R. CANTRELL,

      Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY
Angie K. Schneider, District Court Judge

Ashley N. Smith
Alamogordo, NM

for Appellee

Carl R. Cantrell
Alamogordo, NM

Pro Se Appellant

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1}     Defendant appeals from the district court’s order finding him not guilty for the
unlawful accumulation of growth on his property and guilty for the accumulation of
garbage, refuse, and debris on his property. We issued a calendar notice proposing to
affirm because Defendant did not raise any issues for us to address. Defendant has
filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We hold that
Defendant has not demonstrated error, and we therefore affirm.

{2}   In our calendar notice, we proposed to affirm the district court’s order on the
grounds that Defendant was not an aggrieved party because the district court agreed
with his argument that the City of Alamogordo’s ordinance on the unlawful growth or
accumulation on lots is unconstitutional on its face as the language in the ordinance is
vague. [CN 4] In addition, we explained that to the extent Defendant sought declaratory
judgment on the constitutionality of the City of Alamogordo’s ordinances regarding the
appearance of property, there was no indication in the docketing statement that his
issues had been raised before the district court. [CN 5]

{3}     In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant points to his written closing
statement and argues that it demonstrates that he challenged the “constitutionality of
[the City of Alamogordo’s] entire program and why it should be shut down to prevent the
government using it to abuse [its] power.” [MIO PDF 6] Defendant further explains that
“[t]he only reason [he] has appealed this case . . . is to bring to the attention of the court
the misbehavior of the City so the court could force the [C]ity into compliance with the
US Constitution, [s]tate law, and [f]ederal law.” [MIO PDF 6]

{4}     After reviewing Defendant’s written closing statement along with his
memorandum in opposition, we conclude that although Defendant argued that the City
of Alamogordo’s ordinances regarding the appearance of property were
unconstitutional, he still has not provided us with any issues for our review. See Pirtle v.
Legis. Council Comm. of N.M. Legislature, 2021-NMSC-026, ¶ 58, 492 P.3d 586
(explaining that as an appellate court, we rely on documents presented to us to “decide
legal issues and avoid reaching out to construct legal arguments that the parties,
intentionally or otherwise, have not presented”); see also Headley v. Morgan Mgmt.
Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (“We will not review
unclear arguments, or guess at what [a party’s] arguments might be.”). Rather,
Defendant makes general, conclusory statements about the City of Alamogordo’s
ordinances, but does not challenge the district court’s ruling finding him guilty for
violating the ordinance of accumulation of garbage, refuse and debris on his property.
Defendant does not provide us with any new facts, authority, or argument to
demonstrate that the district court’s order was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea,
1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held
that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed
disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”).

{5}    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
herein, we affirm the district court’s order.

{6}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge