Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure - cited by 3,786 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,887 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. SOTO-TAVISON
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-Appellee,
v.
ERNESTO SOTO-TAVISON,
Defendant,
and
DANIEL GOLDBERG, d/b/a
GOODFELLAS BAIL BONDS,
Surety-Appellant.
NO. 32,002
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
April 18, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY, Mark
Terrence Sanchez, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender, Larry K. Bishop, Assistant Public Defender, Hobbs, NM, for Defendant
Daniel Goldberg, Farmington, NM, Pro Se Surety-Appellant
JUDGES
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KENNEDY, Chief Judge.
{1} Daniel Goldberg, d/b/a Goodfellas Bail Bonds (Surety) appeals pro se from the district court’s amended judgment of default of conditions on bond, claiming that the district court abused its discretion in requiring Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond when Defendant did not appear at the scheduled arraignment. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to reverse in light of the clear language set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-2(F) (1993). Surety filed a timely memorandum in support of our proposed disposition, and the State filed a notice indicating that it will not file a response in opposition.
{2} Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse the district court’s order.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge