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 was arrested on multiple counts of fraud, racketeering, and embezzlement. At the time of arrest, $1,700 in currency and the Defendant's wallet were taken from him. The Defendant, acting pro se, appealed the district court's order denying his motion for the return of these items.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge: The district court denied Defendant's motion for an order requiring the return of currency and wallet taken at the time of arrest.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued for the return of $1,700 in currency and his wallet, which were taken at the time of his arrest.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Filed a timely notice stating that it will not file a memorandum in opposition to the court's notice of proposed summary disposition.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for an order requiring the return of currency and wallet taken at the time of his arrest.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for an order requiring the return of $1,700 in currency and Defendant’s wallet.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court proposed to reverse the district court's decision in a notice of proposed summary disposition. The State did not oppose this proposal, and the Defendant supported it. Therefore, based on the reasons set forth in the notice of proposed summary disposition, the Court reversed the district court's order, requiring the return of the $1,700 in currency and the Defendant's wallet taken at the time of his arrest.