Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. VENEGAS
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JUAN VENEGAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 34,565
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
November 4, 2015
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY, James
Waylon Counts, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, M. Anne Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Nina Lalevic, Assistant Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge. WE CONCUR: JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
Defendant has appealed from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm as to the revocation, but to reverse and remand the as to the sentence in light of an apparent Linam sequencing problem. Both Defendant and the State have filed responsive memoranda. With respect to the revocation, Defendant continues to oppose to our proposed analysis, but presents nothing new in the way of argument or authority. We therefore adhere to our initial assessment of this matter. With respect to the sentence, both Defendant and the State have expressed agreement with our proposal to reverse and remand for correction.
Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we affirm the revocation of Defendant’s probation, but reverse the sentence, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge