Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses - cited by 5,724 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,410 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. SCHMITT
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
CHRISTOPHER SCHMITT,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 35,936
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
April 26, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY,
Fernando R. Macias, 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, Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GARCIA, Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s judgment and sentence, convicting him for resisting, evading or obstructing an officer and sentencing him to probation, following a jury trial. We originally issued a notice of proposed summary affirmance, proposing to affirm Defendant’s conviction. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to our notice, by which we were not persuaded. We filed a memorandum opinion affirming the district court’s judgment and sentence. Defendant filed a motion for rehearing, arguing that this Court’s opinion in State v. Jimenez, 2017-NMCA-__, ¶¶ 24-41, __ P.3d __ (No. 34,375, Feb. 14, 2017), filed on the same day as the memorandum opinion in the current case, came to the opposite conclusion regarding the same statutory language in NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1(B) (1981), and required reversal. We granted Defendant’s motion for rehearing and withdrew our memorandum opinion. We agreed with Defendant and issued a second calendar notice proposing to reverse Defendant’s conviction in light of Jiminez. The State has filed a notice indicating that it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary reversal.
{2} For the reasons stated in our second notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for resisting, evading or obstructing an officer.
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge