Advanced Search
- All Databases (261)
- New Mexico Appellate Reports (93)
- New Mexico Laws and Court Rules (168)
93 result(s)
-
1.
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Ross - 06/17/2024
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsDefendant, however, has not pointed us to anything in the record that demonstrates the district court limited Defendant’s ability to file his own form of judgment or that it otherwise violated the procedure set forth in either Rule 1-058 or LR2-125. [...] {31} Moreover, having reviewed the briefs of both parties, the motions and arguments presented to the district court, and the procedure regarding entry of judgment against Defendant, we conclude that the district court adhered to both Rule 1-058 and LR2-125. [...] All of these steps conform with the procedure set forth in both Rule 1-058 and LR2-125, and we discern no error that could constitute a basis for reversal.
-
2.
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.”).
-
3.
State v. McCalep - 06/07/2024
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee LR2-308(F)(7) NMRA (2021, amended 2022) (“Substitution of counsel alone ordinarily shall not constitute good cause for an extension of time.”).[2] While Defendant’s second attorney certainly may not have known about the alleged impropriety of the victim’s out-of-court identification until the attorney’s entry in the [...] [2]LR2-308(F)(7) was amended on August 29, 2022, and the good cause language was removed.
-
4.
State v. Ornelas - 05/14/2024
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Slip OpinionsSee LR2-308(F)(3)(a) NMRA (2018).[1] The local rule requires Track 1 cases to be tried within 210 days (approximately seven months) from arraignment, absent a finding of exceptional circumstances. [...] The time period would extend well past the seven months allowed by LR2-308(F)(5)(a) for Track 1 cases. [...] [1]All citations to LR2-308, the special pilot rule governing time limits for criminal proceedings in the Second Judicial District Court, are to the 2018 amendment, which was in place in 2021 when these proceedings took place.
-
5.
State v. Gurule - 12/07/2023
Supreme Court of New Mexico - Slip Opinions{86} The district court vacated the February 2, 2015, trial setting and scheduled trial for February 8, 2016, as a result of “a congested court docket” and “the impending imposition of LR2-400” NMRA (subsequently amended and recompiled as LR2-308 NMRA).
-
6.
State v. Groves - 11/08/2023
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsUnder Rule 5-501(A)(5), the state shall within ten days after a defendant’s arraignment disclose to the defendant “a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses which the prosecutor intends to call at the trial.” Under LR2-308(C)(4) NMRA, the state also has “a continuing duty to disclose additional information [...] {23} Here, the district court found that the State complied with its duties to disclose under both Rule 5-501 and LR2-308. [...] Garcia complies with LR2-308 and [Rule] 5-501.” On appeal, Defendant does not attack the district court’s finding that the State complied with its duty to disclose, only that the State entered into a plea deal with Mr. Garcia too late to add him as a witness.
-
7.
Simpson v. Harris - 07/31/2023
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{7} Subsequently, Respondent hired an attorney, who requested permission from the district court to file a twenty-six-page (including exhibits) motion to set aside the default order of protection because the motion exceeded the ten-page limit for motions under LR2-116 NMRA. This request was denied, and Respondent instead
-
8.
State v. Chavez - 2023-NMCA-071 - 06/26/2023
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported Opinions[1]Defendant also calls our attention to an observation the district court describes as “an aside” in its order: that allowing the State to seek a warrant after indictment would thwart the deadlines outlined in LR2-308 NMRA. Apart from calling our attention to this observation in the statement of facts section of his brief,
cited by 5 documents -
9.
State v. Peina - 03/31/2023
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions[BIC 2-3, 7] See LR2-307(B) NMRA (establishing technical violation program and identifying appropriate sanctions to be imposed upon participants when they commit their first, second, third, and fourth technical violations).
-
10.
State v. Lopez - 2023-NMSC-011 - 03/30/2023
Supreme Court of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsIn Seigling, the district court excluded witnesses and suppressed all audio and video evidence after the state failed to satisfy the discovery requirements of LR 2-400(D) (2014).
cited by 2 documents -
11.
City of Santa Fe v. Huisinga - 08/23/2022
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the calculation of any deadlines in Rules 5-604, 6-506, 7-506, 8-506, and LR2-308 NMRA for all cases pending or filed on or after the date of this order shall not include any period of time-delay caused by the current public health emergency.
-
12.
State v. Quarles - 06/30/2022
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsHowever, the district court dismissed the motion without reaching its merits because the district court found that the motion was untimely filed contrary to the scheduling order issued pursuant to LR 2-308 NMRA (the local rule).
-
13.
State v. Murray - 05/31/2022
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee generally Rule 5-805(C) NMRA (providing that technical violations are limited to violations that do not involve new criminal charges); LR2-307(C)(8) (same).
-
14.
State v. Sanchez - 04/07/2022
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsI. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Circumventing LR2-308 {3} Defendant first contends that the district court erred when it failed to sanction the State—by dismissal with prejudice—for allegedly failing to comply with the time limits set out in LR2-308. [...] See LR2-308(F)(5)(c) (“For track 3 cases, the scheduling order shall have trial commence within four hundred fifty-five (455) days of arraignment.”). [...] See LR2-308(F)(5)(a). Defendant’s new trial date was scheduled for January 7, 2019.
-
15.
State v. Ruffin - 03/04/2022
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsFinally, the district court found that a portion of the delay was due to “the case management order and the implementation of LR2-400 [NMRA[3]]” and the reassignment to a new judge, which is classified as administrative delay and weighed slightly against the State. [...] [3]Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-015, former LR2-400 (2014) was recompiled and amended as LR2-308 NMRA, effective December 31, 2016.
-
16.
State v. Pacheco - 12/13/2021
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsThe district court responded that it was having difficulty understanding why Defendant needed medical records forever and noted that the defendant had not made a showing of exceptional circumstances to grant the continuance under LR2-308(J) NMRA. The district court denied the motion for a continuance but gave the defense [...] {12} This trial setting was the second trial setting, and the district court found that there was no showing of exceptional circumstances that would justify another delay under LR2-308(J). [...] “of a reasonable length to complete the defense expert report could have alleviated the prosecution’s concern.” However, this was a complex case in which the State presented six expert witnesses, trial was set to begin in less than three weeks, and the trial date was already set outside the parameters of LR2-308.
-
17.
State v. Chavez - 2022-NMCA-007 - 10/01/2021
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsAnd in Defendant’s case, a local rule of the Second Judicial District Court, Rule LR2-308(G)(3) NMRA (2017), required the district court to consider “the complexity of the case” and “the number of witnesses” as well as “the time needed reasonably to address any eviden[tiary] issues[.]” The court did just that during a
cited by 15 documents -
18.
State v. McWhorter - 2022-NMCA-011 - 09/30/2021
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsLR2-308 governs time limits for criminal proceedings, and LR2-308(B)(1) provides an expedited timeline in which arraignment must occur when a defendant is in custody. [...] In part, LR2-308 is intended to limit the time a defendant remains in custody. [...] Under LR2-308, “[i]f a party fails to comply with any provision of [the] rule, . . . the court shall impose sanctions as the court may deem appropriate in the circumstances and taking into consideration the reasons for the failure to comply.” LR2-308 (H)(1).
cited by 8 documents -
19.
State v. Grossetete - 09/09/2021
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsPohl . . ., and other applicable case law.” [RP 75] Under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to find, as it did, that “[t]he State’s unilateral decision to submit an IPRA request and provide the defense with incomplete discovery [was] a violation of Rule 5-501 NMRA, LR2-308, and [the
-
20.
State v. Stevens - 2022-NMCA-017 - 08/24/2021
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsLR2-308(F)(5)(a) (stating that deadlines for commencement of trial and other events run from arraignment or other applicable triggering event identified in LR2-308(G)). [...] The certification also requires the State to acknowledge that it understands that, “absent extraordinary circumstances,” its “failure to comply with the case processing time lines set forth in [LR2-308] will result in sanctions as set forth in [LR2-308(H)].” LR2-308(B)(2)(d). [...] {22} Instead of focusing on LR2-308(H), Defendant turns to LR2-308(J), the rule’s provision addressing extensions of time for trial.
cited by 4 documents -
21.
State v. Sandoval - 06/09/2021
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{9} This case was governed by LR2-308 NMRA, the special case management pilot program for criminal cases pending in the Second Judicial District Court. [...] LR2-308(H)(1). While the imposition of sanctions is mandatory, the district court has discretion regarding the type of sanction to impose, subject to the considerations enunciated in State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶¶ 15-16, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25: (1) the culpability of the offending party; (2) the prejudice to the
-
22.
State v. Kleinegger - 05/28/2021
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsSee generally Rule LR2-400(B)(1), (3) NMRA (2014) (calling for the reassignment and rescheduling of criminal cases that had been filed in the Second Judicial District Court earlier than July 1, 2014).[2] We thus affirm the district court’s finding that this period of delay was administrative and conclude that the [...] [2]Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 16-8300-015, former LR2-400 (2014) was recompiled and amended as LR2-308 NMRA, effective December 31, 2016.
-
23.
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Martinez - 12/08/2020
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{23} There is no mention of Rule LR2-602 in the referral order. Indeed, based on our comparison of the referral order and the local rule, there is little, if anything, in the referral order that would signal Rule LR2-602’s continued applicability. [...] The notice of settlement facilitation does not reference Rule LR2-602. [...] The district court therefore abused its discretion when it sanctioned RLBA for violating Rule LR2-602(G).
-
24.
Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. Lozoya - 11/17/2020
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinionsany party or attorney in contempt for failure to . . . comply with the terms of th[e] order.” The local rule, Rule LR2-602 NMRA, separately states that “each party of record,” “each counsel of record,” and “the person or persons with complete authority to settle the case” shall attend the settlement conference in person. [...] Rule LR2-602(G). The rule continues, “On motion of any party or its own motion, the court shall impose sanctions for failure to attend the settlement conference or have present all necessary parties or their representatives with settlement authority, except on a showing of good cause.” Id. It was an alleged violation of [...] {11} As set out in its written sanction order, the district court found that McCarthy and Rotonda were to blame for Plaintiff’s in-person attendance infraction and that their conduct violated Rule LR2-602(G).
-
25.
State v. Stammer - 03/05/2020
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinionswould not be set in anticipation of the new rule, LR2-400.[2] It was not until the January 22, 2015, scheduling conference that the trial date was set.” We agree with the district court that “[t]his delay in setting a trial date was due to the administrative delay of LR2-400 and, therefore, this period of approximately [...] {41} On January 22, 2015, the parties stipulated that this was a “complex” case for purposes of LR2-400 and the case was set for trial to commence on December 14, 2015. [...] [2] Rule LR2-400 was amended and recompiled at Rule LR2-308 NMRA.