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 case involves the State of New Mexico as the Plaintiff-Appellant and Pamela B. Gonzales as the Defendant-Appellee. The central issue arose from a district court order that granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the grounds of an unlawful seizure.

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County, Judge George P. Eichwald: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress based on an unlawful seizure.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellee (Pamela B. Gonzales): Argued for the suppression of evidence, claiming the seizure was unlawful.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the basis of an unlawful seizure.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress based on an unlawful seizure is affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Duffy, J., with Attrep, J., and Bogardus, J., concurring: The State appealed the district court's decision to grant the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence due to an unlawful seizure. The Court of Appeals had initially proposed to affirm the district court's decision. The State, upon receiving a calendar notice of this proposal, chose not to file a memorandum in opposition. The Court of Appeals, referencing State v. Mondragon, emphasized that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must specifically point out errors of law and fact. The absence of such a memorandum from the State led to the affirmation of the district court's order (para 1).