Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure - cited by 3,638 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents

Decision Content

STATE V. SOTO-TAVISON

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
ERNESTO SOTO-TAVISON,
Defendant,
and
DANIEL GOLDBERG, d/b/a
GOODFELLAS BAIL BONDS,
Surety-Appellant.

NO. 32,002

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

April 18, 2013


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY, Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge

COUNSEL

Gary K. King, Attorney General, Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender, Larry K. Bishop, Assistant Public Defender, Hobbs, NM, for Defendant

Daniel Goldberg, Farmington, NM, Pro Se Surety-Appellant

JUDGES

RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

AUTHOR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KENNEDY, Chief Judge.

{1}       Daniel Goldberg, d/b/a Goodfellas Bail Bonds (Surety) appeals pro se from the district court’s amended judgment of default of conditions on bond, claiming that the district court abused its discretion in requiring Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond when Defendant did not appear at the scheduled arraignment. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to reverse in light of the clear language set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-2(F) (1993). Surety filed a timely memorandum in support of our proposed disposition, and the State filed a notice indicating that it will not file a response in opposition.

{2}       Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse the district court’s order.

{3}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

JONATHAN B. SUTIN, 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.