Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,937 documents
Rule Set 5 - Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts - cited by 2,343 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. RANKIN
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
RUSSELL RANKIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 31,978
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
June 1, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Reed
S. Sheppard, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, William H. Lazar, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
Clark, Grubesic, Jones & Baur, L.L.C., Thomas M. Clark, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI , Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
The State appealed an order dismissing the charges against Defendant in this case. In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm, stating that dismissal was appropriate pursuant to Rule 5-203(A) NMRA, since the State had failed to join these charges with the related charges in a prior case. The State has filed a response in which it now concedes that joinder was required. It therefore does not oppose summary affirmance. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
LINDA M. VANZI , Judge