State v. Sharp (2012)

See State v. Sharp, 2012-NMCA-042, ¶ 5 , 276 P.3d 969 (stating that 16 in a de novo appeal, the district court must determine itself, independently of the 17 magistrate court decision, “whether the magistrate court rules were followed”); State 18 v. Hicks, 1986-NMCA-129 , ¶ 6, 105 N.M. 286 , 731 P.2d 982 (“In de novo 19 proceedings, the district court is not in any way bound by the proceedings in the 2 1 lower court.”).

See NMSA 1978, § 44-2-5 (1884) (“The writ [of mandamus] shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”); Hoyt v. State, 2015-NMCA-108, ¶ 16 , 359 P.3d 147 (“Mandamus is a creature of statute, and its regulating statutes can be found at NMSA 1978, Sections 44-2-1 to -14 [(1887)].”); see Sharp, 2012-NMCA-042, ¶¶ 1-2, 5, 13 (explaining that a de novo appeal in district court requires an independent assessment of th…

See, e.g., State v. Sharp, 2012-NMCA-042 , 276 P.3d 969 (reviewing the magistrate court’s dismissal for the state’s violation of the six-month rule); State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMCA-112 , 142 N.M. 447 , 166 P.3d 1101 (reviewing the validity of the defendant’s no contest plea in magistrate court, to determine if the appeal should be dismissed); State v. Foster, 2003-NMCA-099 , 134 N.M. 224 , 75 P.3d 824 6 There, of course, is another category of pretrial motions that are subject…

See State v. Sharp, 2012-NMCA-042, ¶ 13 , 276 P.3d 969 (reversing and remanding for de novo proceeding where the district court improperly engaged in appellate, rather than de novo review of a Rule 6-506 appeal). {3} In the event the district court on remand denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss for violation of Rule 6-506, Defendant has asserted that the district court denied him a fair trial by limiting defense counsel’s closing argument.

See State v. Sharp, 2012-NMCA-042, ¶ 4 , 276 P.3d 969 .

See State v. Sharp , 2012-NMCA-042 , ¶ 8, 276 P.3d 969 (emphasizing that, in de novo proceedings, the district court is required to apply the rules of the lower, non-record court in its independent consideration of an issue decided below).

State v. Dorais, 2016-NMCA-049, ¶ 18 , 370 P.3d 771 (“On appeal, we review the district court’s analysis of the six[-]month rule de novo.”); see Sharp, 2012-NMCA-042, ¶¶ 4-6 (addressing the construction of the magistrate court six-month rule and sanctions for its violation); State v. Granado, 2007-NMCA-058, ¶ 11 , 141 N.M. 575 , 158 P.3d 1018 (addressing the construction of the metropolitan court six-month rule); State v. Dominguez, 2007-NMCA-132, ¶¶ 7-8 , 142 N.M. 631 , 168…