Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. YOUNG
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
JAMES YOUNG,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 33,751
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
March 23, 2015
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY, Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
{1} Defendant pled to burglary and possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving the right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss. On December 4, 2014, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to reverse.
{2} On February 2, 2015, the State filed a response with this Court, indicating that it would be filing a motion for stay with the New Mexico Supreme Court and requesting that we await a decision from that Court on the State’s motion before taking further action in this case. We have done so. The New Mexico Supreme Court has recently denied the State’s motion.
{3} Although it is less than entirely clear, the State’s response may incorporate a similar request that this Court stay or hold this case in abeyance pending a decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Archuleta, ____-NMCA-____, ___ P.3d. ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015). To the extent that such a request is made, it is denied.
{4} Turning to the merits, we previously opined that Defendant’s conviction for burglary cannot stand in light of this Court’s decision in Archuleta. The State indicates that it “is unable to provide any additional facts or other legal argument in response to the proposed disposition.” [MIO 2-3]
{5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent therewith.
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge