Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,423 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. CAMPBELL
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
LORIE ESTELLE CAMPBELL
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 33,695
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 10, 2015
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, Darren
M. Kugler, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, RODERICK KENNEDY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FRY, Judge.
{1} The State appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of non-residential burglary. [RP 39, 57] Our notice proposed to affirm, relying on our recently decided opinion State v. Archuleta, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, October 27, 2014) (holding that “violating an order of no trespass by entering an otherwise open public shopping area with the intent to commit a theft does not constitute the type of harmful entry required for a violation of the burglary statute”), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015). The State has filed a response, objecting to our notice and requesting that we hold this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta. [Ct.App.File] We have provided the State with such an opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the State a stay or other remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta. Thus, we apply Archuleta. See Rule 12-405(C) NMRA (“A petition for writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order granting the petition does not affect the precedential value of an opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless ordered by the Supreme Court.”).
{2} In its response to our notice, the State objects to our proposed disposition, but indicates that “it is unable to provide any additional facts or other legal argument in response to the proposed disposition.” [Response] Because there are no material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in Archuleta, we affirm the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of non-residential burglary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
RODERICK KENNEDY, Judge