Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Chapter 66 - Motor Vehicles - cited by 2,952 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,410 documents

Decision Content

STATE V. BURNETTE

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
JOHNIE BURNETTE,
Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 35,739

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

February 22, 2017


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, Marci Beyer, District Judge

COUNSEL

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Jane A. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

JUDGES

LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

AUTHOR: LINDA M. VANZI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VANZI, Chief Judge.

{1}       Following a guilty plea to aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI), contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(D)(1) (2016), and driving the wrong way (one-way roadway), contrary to NMSA 1978, § 66-7-316 (2003), [DS 2; RP 56] Defendant appealed from the judgment and sentence, arguing that one of the prior DWIs used for enhancement to a fourth DWI was invalid because the State did not establish that he was represented by counsel. We issued a first notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm. In response, Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. Upon consideration of Defendant’s arguments, we issued a second notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to reverse. The State has filed a timely response indicating that it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our second notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse.

{2}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.