Advanced Search
- All Databases (261)
- New Mexico Appellate Reports (93)
- New Mexico Laws and Court Rules (168)
93 result(s)
-
26.
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.
-
27.
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
-
28.
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.
-
29.
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.
-
30.
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).
-
31.
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.”).
-
32.
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).
-
33.
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.
-
34.
State v. Ramirez - 09/20/2019
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsThe court assigned the case to Track 1 status which, pursuant to LR2-308(F)(5)(a) NMRA, required the case to go to trial within 210 days. [...] Here, LR2-308(H)(1) requires the district court to impose sanctions for the failure to comply with the scheduling order. [...] The only lesser sanction available under LR2-308(H)(4), then, was a reprimand by the judge, which would not have remedied the prejudice to the Defendant.
-
35.
Merton v. Farmers Insurance Co. - 09/21/2016
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsGiven that under LR2-603 NMRA Plaintiff has obtained only “a nonenforceable order” at this stage, Aragon v. Westside Jeep/Eagle, 1994-NMSC-060, ¶ 10, 117 N.M. 720, 876 P.2d 235, we hold that the underlying negligence action against the insured has not yet concluded. [...] {4} Plaintiff further asserts that, as applied to Hovet plaintiffs, LR2-603 violates principles of due process and equal protection under the law. [...] {5} Lastly, as an alternative remedy, Plaintiff asks this Court to “direct the local court to modify its rules[.]” [MIO 12] While we acknowledge Plaintiff’s arguments that LR2-603 presents a potential for abuse, this Court has no such authority.
-
36.
Etcheverry v. Alarid - 01/23/2012
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsThe parties disputed below whether the three-day mailing rule, see Rule 1-006(D) NMRA, is applicable to local Rule LR2-603(VI)(B)(1) NMRA (procedures for appealing an arbitration decision to district court), when the arbitrator filed the arbitration award and served Law Firm with a copy of such by mail. [...] See Rule LR2-603(V)(D)(3) (requiring the arbitrator to serve copies of the arbitration award on all parties). [...] [RP 36] In relevant part, LR2-603(IV)(B)(1) provides that “To exercise the right to appeal, a party must file a ‘notice of appeal from arbitration’ with the clerk within fifteen (15) days after the award . . . is filed.” And in relevant part, the three-day mailing rule provides: “Whenever a party has the right or is
-
37.
Fred Loya Ins. Co. v. Swiech - 2018-NMCA-022 - 12/04/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported OpinionsAlthough he did not oppose the motion to seal, Swiech argues here that Second Judicial District Local Rule LR2-602(I) authorizes disclosure. [...] {28} LR2-602(I) provides: Parties shall participate in good faith in settlement conferences. [...] No court has construed LR2-602(I) to provide an exception to Section 44-7B-4, and we see no basis to do so here.
cited by 14 documents -
38.
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.
-
39.
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.
-
40.
Computer One, Inc. v. Gilstrap - 04/11/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{6} We also noted that the district court had stricken Computer One’s complaint under Rule LR2-116 NMRA (recompiled and amended as LR2-113, effective Dec 31, 2016). [...] [CN 8] See Rule LR2-113(C) (“The court may strike, by court order on its own motion, any papers filed by an unrepresented corporation.”).
-
41.
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.
-
42.
State v. Batista-Carrasco - 12/06/2018
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsPursuant to LR2-400.1, the district court entered a scheduling order, on February 24, 2015, with only Defendant’s name in the caption and only Defendant’s case number. [...] {32} The Second Judicial District’s “Special Calendar” rule, LR2-400.1, emphasizes the importance of scheduling orders. [...] See LR2-400.1(J)(2)-(4) (describing sanctions when scheduling orders are not followed).
-
43.
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.
-
44.
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).
-
45.
State v. Nairn - 06/14/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{1} The State of New Mexico appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the charges against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Second Judicial District Court Rule LR2-400 NMRA (2015, recompiled and amended as LR2-308 effective Dec. 31, 2016) (local rule).
-
46.
Gillingham v. Reliable Chevrolet - 1998-NMCA-143 - 126 N.M. 30 - 09/15/1998
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Reported Opinions{29} Finally, expenses for photocopies, telephone, facsimile, courier, mileage, travel, and per diem listed in Items 145-154 and 157-162 for a total of $ 2526.03 are generally not recoverable pursuant to Rule LR2-302(D) NMRA 1998. [...] I think all of the items contained in the cost bill are allowable under Rule [1-0]54 of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure or under local Rule [LR2-]302 for the Second Judicial District as being applicable to those rules and representing thorough and appropriate trial preparation. [...] See Rule LR2-302(C), (D). Conclusion {33} We hold that substantial evidence supports the jury's award of punitive damages, but because the district court's instructions on punitive damages constituted reversible error, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages.
cited by 171 documents -
47.
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.
-
48.
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.
-
49.
State v. Anaya - 04/20/2017
Court of Appeals of New Mexico - Unreported Opinions{8} Defendant renews his argument that the late interviews with the State’s witnesses were a violation of Rule LR2-400 NMRA (2015, recompiled and amended as LR2-308 effective Dec. 31, 2016) and that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the trial to go forward despite that violation.
-
50.
State v. Wilson - 12/31/2009
Supreme Court of New Mexico - Unreported OpinionsB. LR 2-104 NMRA Is an Administrative Rule [...] Wilson argues that Judge Murdoch, in violation of LR 2-104(A), was assigned to preside over the preliminary hearing, not on a random basis as required, but because he was the grand jury judge. [...] There is nothing to indicate that LR 2-104(A) was intended to be a right for a defendant as opposed to a rule governing the administration of the courts of the Second Judicial District.