State v. Soto-Tavison, No. 32,002 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Soto-Tavison, No. 32,002 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2013). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State
v.
Soto-Tavison
32,002.
New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Apr 18, 2013.
Unpublished opinion
Unpublished
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. NO. 32,002

ERNESTO SOTO-TAVISON,

Defendant,

and

DANIEL GOLDBERG, d/b/a
GOODFELLAS BAIL BONDS,

Surety-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge

Gary K. King, Attorney General
Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender
Larry K. Bishop, Assistant Public Defender
Hobbs, NM

for Defendant

Daniel Goldberg
Farmington, NM

Pro Se Surety-Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KENNEDY, Chief Judge.

{1} Daniel Goldberg, d/b/a Goodfellas Bail Bonds (Surety) appeals pro se from the district court’s amended judgment of default of conditions on bond, claiming that the district court abused its discretion in requiring Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond when Defendant did not appear at the scheduled arraignment. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to reverse in light of the clear language set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-2(F) (1993). Surety filed a timely memorandum in support of our proposed disposition, and the State filed a notice indicating that it will not file a response in opposition.

{2} Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse the district court’s order.

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________ 1 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

2 WE CONCUR:

3 _________________________________ 4 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

5 _________________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge