Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,423 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Baca - cited by 33 documents
State v. Lizzol - cited by 102 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. BUCK
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-Appellant,
v.
CASSANDRA BUCK,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 35,273
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 22, 2016
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Christina P. Argyres, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
{1} Here, the State appealed from the district court’s order dismissing the State’s case with prejudice. Our review of the record indicated that the district court’s order of dismissal with prejudice was based on an adjudication of the merits of the State’s case and effected an acquittal. See State v. Baca, 2015-NMSC-021, ¶ 32, 352 P.3d 1151. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to dismiss, on grounds that the Double Jeopardy Clause absolutely bars the State from appealing after an acquittal, even where the acquittal is based on “egregiously erroneous” grounds. State v. Lizzol, 2007-NMSC-024, ¶ 7, 141 N.M. 705, 160 P.3d 886 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The State has responded to our notice, indicating that it will not file a memorandum in opposition based on its concurrence that the district court “truly acquitted Defendant, double jeopardy protections preclude retrial, and dismissal of the State’s appeal is required.” [Response] We continue to believe this is the necessary result.
{2} For the reasons stated in this Opinion and in our notice, we dismiss the State’s appeal.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge