Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,887 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. GARZA
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RAUL RALPH GARZA,
Defendant-Appellee.
NO. 34,072
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 11, 2015
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Charles W. Brown, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge. WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WECHSLER, Judge.
{1} The State appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of commercial burglary. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm based on our decision in State v. Archuleta, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015). The State has filed a response, objecting to our notice and requesting that we hold this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta. [MIO 1-3] We have provided the State with such an opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the State a stay or other remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta. Thus, pursuant to Rule 12-405(C) NMRA, we apply Archuleta. See Rule 12-405(C) (“A petition for a writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order granting the petition does not affect the precedential value of an opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”).
{2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1] We continue to believe that there are no material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in Archuleta. For the reasons stated in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the commercial burglary charge.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
WE CONCUR:
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge