Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,423 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Nick R. - cited by 87 documents

Decision Content

STATE V. FRANCISCO M.

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
FRANCISCO M.,
Child-Appellant.

NO. 29,781

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
February 2, 2010


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, Sandra A. Price, District Judge

COUNSEL

Gary K. King, Attorney General, Andrew S. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender, J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

JUDGES

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge. WE CONCUR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

AUTHOR: JAMES J. WECHSLER

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WECHSLER, Judge.

Child appeals the adjudication of delinquency. We issued two calendar notices in this case. In our second calendar notice, we proposed to reverse and remand for retrial. We proposed to reverse the adjudication of delinquency based on our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Nick R., 2009-NMSC-050, 147 N.M. 182, 218 P.3d 868. We also proposed to hold that reasonable minds could infer that Child had the intent necessary to support a conviction for carrying a deadly weapon on school grounds, and therefore retrial was not barred. The State responded to our second calendar notice, agreeing that the adjudication of delinquency should be reversed and agreeing that retrial is not barred. Child filed no response to our second calendar notice. We therefore reverse for the reasons discussed in our second calendar notice, and we remand to the district court for retrial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, 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.