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 convicted for three counts of assault on a peace officer. Following the jury's verdict, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County, October 22, 2015: A judgment and sentence were entered, but without an express disposition of the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Contended that the motion for a new trial was expressly ruled on, referring to a document titled ‘COURT PROCEEDINGS’ which allegedly contained the district court's denial of the motion for a new trial (para 4).
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the absence of an order expressly disposing of the Defendant's motion for a new trial prevents the appeal from being considered final and appealable.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Defendant's appeal as prematurely filed due to the absence of a formal written order expressly ruling on the motion for a new trial (para 6).

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (SUTIN and GARCIA, Judges concurring): The Court determined that the document referred to by the Defendant, which was supposed to express the district court's ruling on the motion for a new trial, was merely a clerical notation rather than a formal written order signed by the judge. This was deemed insufficient to convey the finality necessary for the appeal to proceed. The Court emphasized that appeals can only proceed from formal written orders or judgments signed by the judge and filed in the case. Consequently, without such an order expressly disposing of the motion for a new trial, the Defendant's appeal was considered prematurely filed and was dismissed (paras 4-6).