Advanced Search
- All Databases (261)
- New Mexico Appellate Reports (93)
- New Mexico Laws and Court Rules (168)
261 result(s)
-
51.
State v. Angulo - 01/05/2016
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsThe effective date of LR2-400.1 is February 2, 2015. See LR2-400.1(A). [...] 4 LR2-400.1(D)(3) pertains to evidence in the possession of the state. [...] See LR2-400.1(I).
-
52.
State v. Lewis - 2018-NMCA-019 - 11/16/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsLR2-400.1(D). The parties are also subject to “a continuing duty to disclose additional information within five (5) days of receipt of such information.” LR2-400.1(D)(2). [...] {9} The State concedes that it violated its initial disclosure obligations under LR2-400.1. [...] LR2-400.1(D). The State also had a “continuing duty to disclose additional information to [the defendant] within five (5) days of receipt of such information.” LR2-400.1(D)(2).
cited by 26 documents -
53.
State v. Rosas-Campuzano - 10/05/2016
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee Rule LR 2-400(D)(4) (2014); Rule LR 2-400(I) (2014). This Court’s second calendar notice proposed to affirm the district court’s order of dismissal without prejudice. [...] In support of its argument that Jackson governs, the State relies on the above language in Rule LR 2-400(A) for the contention that this Court should not read Jackson as conflicting with Rule LR 2-400(D)(3) absent clear language in the rule that our Supreme Court intended such a sweeping change to the State’s discovery [...] LR 2-400(D)(3) (2014), with Rule LR 2-400(D)(4) (2016), providing that “[e]vidence is deemed to be in possession of the state for purposes of this rule if such evidence is in the possession or control of any person or entity who has participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case.” Rule LR 2-400(D)(4) (2016).
-
54.
State v. Jaramillo - 03/25/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions[1] LR2-400 took effect on February 2, 2015, and was recompiled as LR2-308 NMRA in 2016. [...] LR2-400 applied to criminal cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court on or before June 30, 2014. [...] LR2-400(B)(1); LR2-400.1(B). Defendant’s case, commenced on June 4, 2014, was governed by LR2-400.1, the special calendaring rule.
-
55.
State v. Kessler - 01/07/2018
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee LR2-400.1(D)(4). On July 20, 2015, the State filed another amended notice of intent to call witnesses, listing Mr. Walton as the only chemist. [...] {9} While LR2-400.1(D)(4) makes sanctions mandatory for discovery violations, it provides the district court with discretion regarding the type of sanction to impose. [...] {10} As an initial matter, we must determine whether the State violated Rule 5-501(A)(5), and consequently LR2-400.1.
-
56.
State v. Romero - 07/24/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee LR2-400(I)(1) (stating that district court “shall impose sanctions”). [...] LR2-400 did not prohibit a sanction because a motion for a sanction was late. [...] [1]LR2-400 was recompiled and amended as LR2-308 NMRA, effective December 31, 2016.
-
57.
State v. A. N-C - 12/26/2018
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee LR2-400.1(A)-(B). The rule requires the district court to hold a scheduling conference and issue a scheduling order. [...] LR2-400.1(J)(3). {11} While LR2-400.1 makes sanctions mandatory for violations of discovery obligations and scheduling order deadlines, it provides the district court with discretion regarding the type of sanction to impose. [...] See LR2-400.1(D)(4), (J)(4). We review the district court’s imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion.
-
58.
State v. Chavez - 12/20/2018
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee LR2-400.1(A)-(B). The rule requires parties to “disclose or make available all discovery described in Rule 5-501(A)(1)-(6) . . . [...] LR2-400.1(A), (D). Rule 5-501(A)(5) provides that the State shall disclose or make available to the defendant “a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses which the prosecutor intends to call at the trial[.]” The parties also have “a continuing duty to disclose additional information within five (5) days of [...] LR2-400.1(D)(4), (J)(4). We review the district court’s imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion.
-
59.
State v. Frey - 02/15/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee LR2-400(I)(3)(e). We further noted that no restrictions on the district court’s discretion to impose this remedy apply in the current case. [...] 1Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-015, former LR2-400 was recompiled and amended as LR2-308 effective December 31, 2016. [...] Any references to the local rule in this opinion are to former LR2-400.
-
60.
State v. Otero - 04/13/2016
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{3} We decline to adopt the State’s proposed construction of LR 2-400 because doing so would conflict with the plain language of the local rule. [...] As our second notice observed, [2 CN 4-5] pursuant to LR 2-400(D)(1), the State is required to make all initial disclosures “described in Rule 5-501(A)(1)-(6) . . . at the arraignment or within five (5) days of when a written waiver of arraignment is filed.” LR 2-400(D)(1). [...] [2 MIO 9] In short, the State argues that LR 2-400 mandates a different result when read in conjunction with Harper.
-
61.
State v. Torres - 04/07/2016
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{3} We decline to adopt the State’s proposed construction of LR 2-400 because doing so would conflict with the plain language of the local rule. [...] As our second notice observed, pursuant to LR 2-400(D)(1), the State is required to make all initial disclosures “described in Rule 5-501(A)(1)-(6) . . . at the arraignment or within five (5) days of when a written waiver of arraignment is filed[.]” LR 2-400(D)(1). [...] [2 MIO 8–9] In short, the State argues that LR 2-400 mandates a different result when read in conjunction with Harper.
-
62.
State v. Estrada - 08/30/2018
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsThe case had already been dismissed once without prejudice due to failure to comply with LR2-400 (2015). [...] {2} This case arises out of the district court’s interpretation of LR2-400 (Feb. 2, 2016) (the local rule). [...] See LR2-400(I)(1) (2015) (mandating sanctions for failure to comply with the rule).
-
63.
Aragon v. Westside Jeep/Eagle - 1994-NMSC-060 - 117 N.M. 720 - 05/26/1994
Supreme Court of New Mexico - Reported Opinions{4} On December 7, 1992, the district court entered an order referring the case to court-annexed arbitration under LR2-603. [...] Westside Jeep argued that LR2-603(VI)(B)(1) required notice to be filed within fifteen days and expressly stated that no extensions were allowed. [...] We do not agree that the district court lost jurisdiction over this case when the Aragons failed to timely file a notice of appeal as required by LR2-603(VI)(B)(1).
cited by 67 documents -
64.
State v. Pino - 05/23/2018
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsWe also stated that, based on the facts in this case and the plain language of LR2-308(I)(1) requiring sanctions for violations of the Rule, we were not persuaded by the State’s contention that a monetary sanction against it was an improper remedy under LR2-308 when an extension of deadlines for pretrial interviews and [...] [CN 4] Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the State failed to comply with LR2-308(D)(1); pursuant to LR2-308(I)(1), the district court was required to sanction the State for failing to comply with the Rule; and pursuant to LR2-308(I)(3), a monetary sanction was a permissible sanction. [...] Based on the information before this Court, we cannot find an abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to sanction the State with a $250 fine for its failure to comply with LR2-308(D).
-
65.
State v. Fernandez - 11/14/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsIn particular, the State argues it did not violate a provision of LR2-308 or the time limitations imposed by the district court’s scheduling order, and the district court therefore “lacked a legal basis to impose the sanction it ultimately imposed.” [...] interviews on this case and therefore [his motion to exclude witnesses] is denied.” See LR2-308(I)(1), (3) (providing a non-exhaustive list of sanctions the district court may impose on a party for failing to comply with any provision of LR2-308 or the time limits imposed by a scheduling order entered under the rule). [...] [1]Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-015 (2016), former LR2-400 NMRA was recompiled and amended as LR2-308, “effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2016[.]” All references to LR2-308 in this opinion are to the 2017 version of the rule unless otherwise noted.
-
66.
State v. Candelaria - 2019-NMCA-032 - 04/01/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsIn turn, LR2-400.1[2] governed the process for cases on the special calendar, but those cases were subject to the same sanctions for failure to comply with time limits as those under LR2-400. [...] See LR2-400.1(P)(4). LR2-400(G)(4) required district court judges to issue a scheduling order for criminal cases on various “tracks,” and specified the period of time before trial for filing pretrial motions. [...] See LR2-400(G)(4)(a)(vi) (requiring pretrial motions in track 1 cases to be filed at least fifty days before trial); LR2-400(G)(4)(b)(vi) (requiring pretrial motions in track 2 cases to be filed at least sixty days before trial); and LR2-400(G)(4)(c)(vi) (requiring pretrial motions in track 3 cases to be filed at least
cited by 50 documents -
67.
State v. Lucero - 2017-NMCA-079 - 04/03/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsWe recently considered the application of Armijo to a dismissal pursuant to LR 2-400.1, and we concluded that “in the absence of clear language from our Supreme Court, . . . the pilot rule does not change or otherwise affect the [s]tate’s right of appeal.” State v. Angulo, No. 34,714, mem. op. [...] {14} The State argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice, pursuant to LR2-400.1.2 We review the district court’s ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. [...] 1 The State refers to both LR2-400.1, which governs “special calendar cases,” and LR2-400 NMRA (2015, recompiled and amended as LR2-308 effective Dec. 31, 2016), which governs “new calendar cases.” The special calendar rule, LR2-400.1(B), “applies to all cases filed on or before June 30, 2014, unless identified as a case
cited by 25 documents -
68.
State v. Garcia - 03/02/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions[RP 75-77] The bench notes were produced 84 days prior to the trial setting, rather than 120 or 90 days in advance thereof, as specified in LR2-308(G)(4)(a)(viii). [...] See LR2-308(A) (providing that “existing case law on criminal procedure continue to apply to cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court, but only to the extent [the existing case law does] not conflict with [the local] rule”). [...] See LR2-400(I). However, lesser sanctions were still available to the district court.
-
69.
State v. Garcia - 07/18/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions1LR2-400 has been recompiled and amended as LR2-308 NMRA. For purposes of this case, the relevant provisions are the same. [...] {2} In its docketing statement, the State articulated four issues—all of which relate to the central contention that the district court erred in dismissing the case pursuant to LR2-400. [...] 1LR2-400 has been recompiled and amended as LR2-308 NMRA. For purposes of this case, the relevant provisions are the same.
-
70.
State v. Ortiz - 06/28/2018
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{12} As an initial matter, we note that the evidence in this case was excluded one week before enactment of the Second Judicial District Court’s case management pilot program for criminal cases under LR2-400 NMRA (2014, recompiled and amended as LR2-308 NMRA, effective Dec. 31, 2016). [...] the local rules governing discovery in criminal matters, prior to the enactment of special local rules.” We therefore resolve this appeal under the rules for disclosure violation sanctions that were in place before the enactment of LR2-308, but note that our conclusion would be no different if LR2-308 applied in this case. [...] See LR2-308(A) (“The Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts and existing case law on criminal procedure continue to apply to cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court, but only to the extent they do not conflict with this pilot rule.”); State v. Seigling, 2017-NMCA-035, ¶ 23, 392 P.3d 226 (concluding
-
71.
State v. Manzanares - 02/26/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee LR2-308(H)(5) (2018) (“[T]he court may impose a sanction if the failure to transport was attributable to the prosecutor’s failure to properly prepare and serve a transportation order if so required.”). [...] 1The local rule was recompiled as LR2-308 NMRA, effective December 31, 2016, pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-015. [...] 3Defendant does not allege on appeal that he was in custody when he was indicted, so we do not consider the seven-day deadline provided in LR2-400 for in-custody defendants.
-
72.
State v. Espinoza - 06/23/2016
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions[is] material to the preparation of the defense or [is] intended for use by the state as evidence at the trial[.]” [2 CN 5] However, we also point out that LR 2-400(D)(1) NMRA does not contain any language limiting the State’s duty to provide copies of documentary evidence based on a lack of materiality to the defense. [...] recordings made by law enforcement officers or otherwise in possession of the state[.]” [2 CN 4-5 (quoting LR 2-400(D)(1)] The Rule provides that evidence in the possession of a law enforcement agency or other government agency is “deemed to be in possession of the state for purposes of this [R]ule.” LR 2-400(D)(4). [...] Therefore, we conclude that the plain language of LR 2-400 is broader than that of Rule 5-501(A)(3), requiring the State to provide to the defense copies of documentary evidence irrespective of a showing of materiality.
-
73.
State v. Perez - 05/23/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{3} Defendant was required to be arraigned not later than seven business days after the indictment, or by May 31, 2016, pursuant to LR2-400(C)(1). [...] {7} We review the district court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to LR2-400 for an abuse of discretion. [...] See Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 5 (applying abuse of discretion standard to review imposition of sanctions under LR2-400).
-
74.
Absolute Resolutions Inv., LLC v. Andazola - 06/10/2024
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions[RP 56-58] As a consequence, default judgment was entered against her pursuant to LR2-603(E)(1)(d) NMRA (“All parties shall participate in good faith in the arbitration proceedings. [...] See LR2-603(E)(1)(a) (indicating that assigned judges “should not hear any matters after an arbitrator is appointed” except a few specified matters, which do not include objections or motions to dismiss). [...] See LR2-603(F)(1) (“[A] party may not appeal an award of default, including an award of default entered under Subparagraph (E)(1)(d) of this rule.”).
-
75.
State v. Zavala - 12/31/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsLR2-400 [NMRA]— Defense Counsel: Yes. The Court: —does not allow for an extension, unless there’s good cause and substitution of counsel, in and of itself, does not suffice. [...] LR2-400(A) (“This is a special pilot rule governing time limits for criminal proceedings in the Second Judicial District Court.”). [...] [but that] substitution of counsel alone ordinarily shall not constitute good cause for an extension of time.” LR2-400(G)(6).