AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Jesse James Lester III, sought to dismiss the charges against him based on the argument that the applicable time limitations for the offenses outlined in the criminal complaint had not been met.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Lisa B. Riley, District Judge: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the charges should be dismissed due to the failure to meet the applicable time limitations for the offenses set forth in the criminal complaint.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that there is authority supporting the Defendant's position but suggested that the relevant case, State v. Trevizo, should either be distinguished or reconsidered.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the failure to meet the applicable time limitations for the offenses set forth in the criminal complaint.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Henry M. Bohnhoff, J., and Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring):
  The Court granted the Defendant's application for interlocutory review and proposed to reverse the district court's decision. The State's memorandum in opposition acknowledged the existence of authority supporting reversal but argued for a distinction or reconsideration of State v. Trevizo. The Court found no material basis to distinguish Trevizo and declined to revisit its holding, noting that the Legislature's amendment of the statute did not alter the interpretation established by the Supreme Court in Robinson v. Short. The Court also rejected the State's suggestion that Trevizo should be distinguished based on differences in penalties under Game and Fish regulations compared to the Criminal Code, stating that these differences were not sufficient to deviate from established precedent. The Court emphasized its obligation to follow Supreme Court precedent and suggested that the State seek further review if it believed that Robinson should be reconsidered (paras 1-6).