32 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Peppersgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Peppers, 1990-NMCA-057 , ¶ 21, 110 9 N.M. 393 , 796 P.2d 614 (holding that the Duran presumption does not apply to 10 appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 2023See State v. Peppers, 1990-NMCA-057 , ¶ 21, 110 9 N.M. 393 , 796 P.2d 614 (holding that the Duran presumption does not apply to 10 appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). | 6 | 9 |
State v. Leyvagreen2 sentences2023In other words, Officer Stacy’s training and experience allowed him to perceive and articulate meaning from the combination of the tools when considered with the driver’s and Defendant’s conduct, thereby raising his suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. {25} When making a reasonableness determination, we must “necessarily take into account the evolving circumstances with which the officer was faced.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 (text only) (quoting State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 36 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 , overruled on other grounds by Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 2023In other words, Officer Stacy’s training and experience allowed him to perceive and articulate meaning from the combination of the tools when considered with the driver’s and Defendant’s conduct, thereby raising his suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. {25} When making a reasonableness determination, we must “necessarily take into account the evolving circumstances with which the officer was faced.” Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 (text only) (quoting State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 36 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 , overruled on other grounds by Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶¶ | 4 | 6 |
State v. Funderburggreen2 sentences2023In other words, Officer Stacy’s 17 training and experience allowed him to perceive and articulate meaning from the 18 combination of the tools when considered with the driver’s and Defendant’s conduct, 19 thereby raising his suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. 19 1 {25} When making a reasonableness determination, we must “necessarily take into 2 account the evolving circumstances with which the officer was faced.” Funderburg, 3 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 (text only) (quoting State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 36 , 4 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 , overruled on other grounds by Leyv 2023In other words, Officer Stacy’s 17 training and experience allowed him to perceive and articulate meaning from the 18 combination of the tools when considered with the driver’s and Defendant’s conduct, 19 thereby raising his suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. 19 1 {25} When making a reasonableness determination, we must “necessarily take into 2 account the evolving circumstances with which the officer was faced.” Funderburg, 3 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 (text only) (quoting State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 36 , 4 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 , overruled on other grounds by Leyv | 2 | 2 |
Bruce v. Lestergreen2 sentences2009Because Defendant appeared pro se and did not have a right to 8 counsel, we see no reason to extend the Duran presumption to Defendant’s appeal. 9 See State v. Lewis, 104 N.M. 218, 221 , 719 P.2d 445, 448 (Ct. App. 1986) (“A 10 defendant who elects to assert his [or her] right of self-representation in a criminal 11 appeal is required to comply with all applicable rules of appellate procedure[.]”); see 12 also Bruce v. Lester, 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4 , 127 N.M. 301 , 980 P.2d 84 (holding that 13 pro se litigants must comply with the rules and orders of the court and will not be 14 treated different 2009Because Defendant appeared pro se and did not have a right to 8 counsel, we see no reason to extend the Duran presumption to Defendant’s appeal. 9 See State v. Lewis, 104 N.M. 218, 221 , 719 P.2d 445, 448 (Ct. App. 1986) (“A 10 defendant who elects to assert his [or her] right of self-representation in a criminal 11 appeal is required to comply with all applicable rules of appellate procedure[.]”); see 12 also Bruce v. Lester, 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4 , 127 N.M. 301 , 980 P.2d 84 (holding that 13 pro se litigants must comply with the rules and orders of the court and will not be 14 treated different | 2 | 2 |
Evitts v. Luceygreen2 sentences2014While we agree with the State’s assertion that the extension of a conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel should only occur where a right to counsel exists, see State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 9 , 292 P.3d 493 (stating that “the presumption can only apply in situations where a defendant has a right to counsel”), cert. quashed 2013-NMCERT-010 , 313 P.3d 251 ; see also Evitts, 469 U.S. at 397, n.7 (“[T]he right to effective assistance of counsel is dependent on the right to counsel itself.”), we disagree that Duran limits this Court to relying on the right to counsel as defin 2014While we agree with the State’s assertion that the extension of a conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel should only occur where a right to counsel exists, see State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 9 , 292 P.3d 493 (stating that “the presumption can only apply in situations where a defendant has a right to counsel”), cert. quashed 2013-NMCERT-010 , 313 P.3d 251 ; see also Evitts, 469 U.S. at 397, n.7 (“[T]he right to effective assistance of counsel is dependent on the right to counsel itself.”), we disagree that Duran limits this Court to relying on the right to counsel as defin | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leongreen2 sentences2014See also Vigil, 2014-NMCA-__, ¶ 16 (applying the Duran principle when “an untimely notice of appeal is filed following the district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision”); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 15 , 292 P.3d 493 (extending the Duran presumption in situations where counsel fails to timely file a notice of appeal from an order revoking probation), cert. quashed, 2013-NMCERT-010 , 313 P.3d 251 ; State v. Eger, 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 5 , 141 N.M. 379 , 155 P.3d 784 (holding “that the Duran presumption of ineffectiveness of counsel extends to [the defendant's right to appea 2014See also Vigil, 2014-NMCA-__, ¶ 16 (applying the Duran principle when “an untimely notice of appeal is filed following the district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision”); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 15 , 292 P.3d 493 (extending the Duran presumption in situations where counsel fails to timely file a notice of appeal from an order revoking probation), cert. quashed, 2013-NMCERT-010 , 313 P.3d 251 ; State v. Eger, 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 5 , 141 N.M. 379 , 155 P.3d 784 (holding “that the Duran presumption of ineffectiveness of counsel extends to [the defendant's right to appea | 1 | 5 |
State v. Durangreen2 sentences2016Not persuaded by Appellant’s 4 arguments, we dismiss the appeal. 5 {2} Appellant does not dispute the facts relied upon by this Court in its proposed 6 disposition but asks this Court to apply the Duran presumption of ineffective 7 assistance of counsel where the notice of appeal is not filed within the time limit 8 required. [MIO 1-2] See State v. Duran, 1986-NMCA-125 , ¶¶ 3, 6, 105 N.M. 231 , 731 9 P.2d 374 (stating that there is a conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of 10 counsel where notice of appeal is not filed within the time limit required). 2016Not persuaded by Appellant’s 4 arguments, we dismiss the appeal. 5 {2} Appellant does not dispute the facts relied upon by this Court in its proposed 6 disposition but asks this Court to apply the Duran presumption of ineffective 7 assistance of counsel where the notice of appeal is not filed within the time limit 8 required. [MIO 1-2] See State v. Duran, 1986-NMCA-125 , ¶¶ 3, 6, 105 N.M. 231 , 731 9 P.2d 374 (stating that there is a conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of 10 counsel where notice of appeal is not filed within the time limit required). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Vigilgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Dorais, 2014-NMCA-__, ¶¶ 4-5, 7, __P.3d___(No. 32,235, May 21, 2014) (concluding that the Duran presumption applies where the notice of appeal was not filed for four years following a de novo trial in the district court in an appeal from the magistrate court); Vigil, 2014-NMCA-096, ¶ 16 (applying the Duran presumption when “an untimely notice of appeal is filed following the district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision”); State v. Eger, 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 5 , 141 N.M. 379 , 155 P.3d 784 (holding that the Duran presumption of ineffectiveness of counsel applies t 2015See State v. Dorais, 2014-NMCA-__, ¶¶ 4-5, 7, __P.3d___(No. 32,235, May 21, 2014) (concluding that the Duran presumption applies where the notice of appeal was not filed for four years following a de novo trial in the district court in an appeal from the magistrate court); Vigil, 2014-NMCA-096, ¶ 16 (applying the Duran presumption when “an untimely notice of appeal is filed following the district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision”); State v. Eger, 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 5 , 141 N.M. 379 , 155 P.3d 784 (holding that the Duran presumption of ineffectiveness of counsel applies t | 1 | 2 |
State v. Reyesgreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., State ex rel. 5 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda M., 2006-NMCA-133, ¶ 19 , 140 N.M. 6 578 , 144 P.3d 137 (“In order for the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel 7 to apply, the party must have a right to effective assistance of counsel.”); State v. 8 Reyes, 2005-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 137 N.M. 727 , 114 P.3d 407 (recognizing that a pro 9 se defendant is precluded from complaining on appeal that ineffective 10 self-representation amounts to a denial of effective assistance of counsel). 11 Reyes has filed a memorandum in opposition in which he acknowledges that 12 he i 2012See, e.g., State ex rel. 5 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda M., 2006-NMCA-133, ¶ 19 , 140 N.M. 6 578 , 144 P.3d 137 (“In order for the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel 7 to apply, the party must have a right to effective assistance of counsel.”); State v. 8 Reyes, 2005-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 137 N.M. 727 , 114 P.3d 407 (recognizing that a pro 9 se defendant is precluded from complaining on appeal that ineffective 10 self-representation amounts to a denial of effective assistance of counsel). 11 Reyes has filed a memorandum in opposition in which he acknowledges that 12 he i | 1 | 2 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Amanda M.green2 sentences2012See, e.g., State ex rel. 5 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda M., 2006-NMCA-133, ¶ 19 , 140 N.M. 6 578 , 144 P.3d 137 (“In order for the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel 7 to apply, the party must have a right to effective assistance of counsel.”); State v. 8 Reyes, 2005-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 137 N.M. 727 , 114 P.3d 407 (recognizing that a pro 9 se defendant is precluded from complaining on appeal that ineffective 10 self-representation amounts to a denial of effective assistance of counsel). 11 Reyes has filed a memorandum in opposition in which he acknowledges that 12 he i 2012See, e.g., State ex rel. 5 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda M., 2006-NMCA-133, ¶ 19 , 140 N.M. 6 578 , 144 P.3d 137 (“In order for the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel 7 to apply, the party must have a right to effective assistance of counsel.”); State v. 8 Reyes, 2005-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 137 N.M. 727 , 114 P.3d 407 (recognizing that a pro 9 se defendant is precluded from complaining on appeal that ineffective 10 self-representation amounts to a denial of effective assistance of counsel). 11 Reyes has filed a memorandum in opposition in which he acknowledges that 12 he i | 1 | 2 |
Scholle v. Pinogreen2 sentences2023See State v. Peppers, 1990-NMCA-057 , ¶ 21, 110 9 N.M. 393 , 796 P.2d 614 (holding that the Duran presumption does not apply to 10 appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 2023See State v. Peppers, 1990-NMCA-057 , ¶ 21, 110 9 N.M. 393 , 796 P.2d 614 (holding that the Duran presumption does not apply to 10 appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Upchurchgreen2 sentences2018See State v. 8 Upchurch, 2006-NMCA-076, ¶ 4 , 139 N.M. 739 , 137 P.3d 679 (noting the Duran 9 presumption’s applicability to “represented criminal defendants”); Lewis, 1986- 10 NMCA-038, ¶ 10 (“A defendant who elects to assert his right of self-representation 11 in a criminal appeal is required to comply with all applicable rules of appellate 12 procedure, and he may not use his right to self-representation to cause delay or 13 thwart the orderly and fair administration of justice.”); see also Bruce v. Lester, 14 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4 , 127 N.M. 301 , 980 P.2d 84 (“[A d]efendant[] who has 15 chos 2018See State v. 8 Upchurch, 2006-NMCA-076, ¶ 4 , 139 N.M. 739 , 137 P.3d 679 (noting the Duran 9 presumption’s applicability to “represented criminal defendants”); Lewis, 1986- 10 NMCA-038, ¶ 10 (“A defendant who elects to assert his right of self-representation 11 in a criminal appeal is required to comply with all applicable rules of appellate 12 procedure, and he may not use his right to self-representation to cause delay or 13 thwart the orderly and fair administration of justice.”); see also Bruce v. Lester, 14 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4 , 127 N.M. 301 , 980 P.2d 84 (“[A d]efendant[] who has 15 chos | 1 | 1 |
Wakeland v. New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutionsgreen2 sentences2017See Wakeland, 2012-NMCA-021 , ¶ 14 6 (discussing our case law holding that “because a notice of appeal contains no 7 information about the issues raised on appeal, it cannot substitute for a petition for 8 writ of certiorari since it does not substantially comply with the content requirements 9 for a petition”). 10 {7} Finally, Driver argues that we should extend the Duran presumption to accept 11 his late filed docketing statement and consider the merits of the appeal. 2017See Wakeland, 2012-NMCA-021 , ¶ 14 6 (discussing our case law holding that “because a notice of appeal contains no 7 information about the issues raised on appeal, it cannot substitute for a petition for 8 writ of certiorari since it does not substantially comply with the content requirements 9 for a petition”). 10 {7} Finally, Driver argues that we should extend the Duran presumption to accept 11 his late filed docketing statement and consider the merits of the appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eldergreen2 sentences2014See State v. Peppers, 1990-NMCA-057 , ¶ 21, 110 19 N.M. 393 , 796 P.2d 614 (stating that conclusive presumption adopted in Duran is not 20 extended to appeals from guilty or no contest pleas). 2 1 {3} Since the Duran presumption does not apply to allow us to hear Defendant’s 2 appeal, we consider whether there are any unusual circumstances which would permit 3 this Court to review the merits of Defendant’s appeal. 2014See State v. Peppers, 1990-NMCA-057 , ¶ 21, 110 19 N.M. 393 , 796 P.2d 614 (stating that conclusive presumption adopted in Duran is not 20 extended to appeals from guilty or no contest pleas). 2 1 {3} Since the Duran presumption does not apply to allow us to hear Defendant’s 2 appeal, we consider whether there are any unusual circumstances which would permit 3 this Court to review the merits of Defendant’s appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dominguezgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Dominguez, 4 2007-NMCA-132, ¶ 10 , 142 N.M. 631 , 168 P.3d 761 (stating that we will excuse an 5 untimely appeal only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the parties). 6 In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we noted that Defendant filed a 7 motion on May 20, 2013, in district court seeking an extension to file a notice of 8 appeal, in which he states that his lawyer failed to file an appeal on his behalf. [RP 9 69] However, we stated that Defendant’s motion for extension of time was not timely, 10 and the district court could not have granted an extension 2014See State v. Dominguez, 4 2007-NMCA-132, ¶ 10 , 142 N.M. 631 , 168 P.3d 761 (stating that we will excuse an 5 untimely appeal only in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the parties). 6 In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we noted that Defendant filed a 7 motion on May 20, 2013, in district court seeking an extension to file a notice of 8 appeal, in which he states that his lawyer failed to file an appeal on his behalf. [RP 9 69] However, we stated that Defendant’s motion for extension of time was not timely, 10 and the district court could not have granted an extension | 1 | 1 |
State v. Danekgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 8 410, 414 , 882 P.2d 1, 5 (1994) (holding that ordinarily, a guilty or no contest plea 9 waives a defendant’s right to appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds); State v. Leyba, 10 2009-NMCA-030 , ¶¶ 14, 17, 145 N.M. 712 , 204 P.3d 37 (applying Hodge in relation 11 to an admitted probation violation); State v. Peppers, 110 N.M. 393, 399 , 796 P.2d 12 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990) (declining to extend the Duran presumption of 13 ineffectiveness of counsel to include appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 14 DISCUSSION 15 In his memorandum in opposition Defendant notes 2013See State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 8 410, 414 , 882 P.2d 1, 5 (1994) (holding that ordinarily, a guilty or no contest plea 9 waives a defendant’s right to appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds); State v. Leyba, 10 2009-NMCA-030 , ¶¶ 14, 17, 145 N.M. 712 , 204 P.3d 37 (applying Hodge in relation 11 to an admitted probation violation); State v. Peppers, 110 N.M. 393, 399 , 796 P.2d 12 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990) (declining to extend the Duran presumption of 13 ineffectiveness of counsel to include appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 14 DISCUSSION 15 In his memorandum in opposition Defendant notes | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hodgegreen2 sentences2013See State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 8 410, 414 , 882 P.2d 1, 5 (1994) (holding that ordinarily, a guilty or no contest plea 9 waives a defendant’s right to appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds); State v. Leyba, 10 2009-NMCA-030 , ¶¶ 14, 17, 145 N.M. 712 , 204 P.3d 37 (applying Hodge in relation 11 to an admitted probation violation); State v. Peppers, 110 N.M. 393, 399 , 796 P.2d 12 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990) (declining to extend the Duran presumption of 13 ineffectiveness of counsel to include appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 14 DISCUSSION 15 In his memorandum in opposition Defendant notes 2013See State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 8 410, 414 , 882 P.2d 1, 5 (1994) (holding that ordinarily, a guilty or no contest plea 9 waives a defendant’s right to appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds); State v. Leyba, 10 2009-NMCA-030 , ¶¶ 14, 17, 145 N.M. 712 , 204 P.3d 37 (applying Hodge in relation 11 to an admitted probation violation); State v. Peppers, 110 N.M. 393, 399 , 796 P.2d 12 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990) (declining to extend the Duran presumption of 13 ineffectiveness of counsel to include appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 14 DISCUSSION 15 In his memorandum in opposition Defendant notes | 1 | 1 |
Doña Ana Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Ass'n v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commissiongreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., State ex rel. 5 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda M., 2006-NMCA-133, ¶ 19 , 140 N.M. 6 578 , 144 P.3d 137 (“In order for the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel 7 to apply, the party must have a right to effective assistance of counsel.”); State v. 8 Reyes, 2005-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 137 N.M. 727 , 114 P.3d 407 (recognizing that a pro 9 se defendant is precluded from complaining on appeal that ineffective 10 self-representation amounts to a denial of effective assistance of counsel). 11 Reyes has filed a memorandum in opposition in which he acknowledges that 12 he i 2012See, e.g., State ex rel. 5 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda M., 2006-NMCA-133, ¶ 19 , 140 N.M. 6 578 , 144 P.3d 137 (“In order for the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel 7 to apply, the party must have a right to effective assistance of counsel.”); State v. 8 Reyes, 2005-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 137 N.M. 727 , 114 P.3d 407 (recognizing that a pro 9 se defendant is precluded from complaining on appeal that ineffective 10 self-representation amounts to a denial of effective assistance of counsel). 11 Reyes has filed a memorandum in opposition in which he acknowledges that 12 he i | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2012See Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 1-3 (“Because Article II, Section 10 provides greater protections against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Fourth Amendment, we maintain the Duran standard for reviewing searches and seizures under the New Mexico Constitution.”); see also State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 24 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (“There is established New Mexico law interpreting Article II, Section 10 more expansively than the Fourth Amendment.”). 2012See Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 1-3 (“Because Article II, Section 10 provides greater protections against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Fourth Amendment, we maintain the Duran standard for reviewing searches and seizures under the New Mexico Constitution.”); see also State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 24 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (“There is established New Mexico law interpreting Article II, Section 10 more expansively than the Fourth Amendment.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 23 , 148 N.M. 659 , 241 P.3d 1099 (declining to adopt the Fourth Amendment private search doctrine under Article II, Section 10 due to our constitution’s “strong preference for a warrant”); Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶ 37 , 147 N.M. 134 , 217 P.3d 1032 (retaining the totality of the circumstances free-to-leave test for seizures under Article II, Section 10); Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 20 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (rejecting a bright-line rule for car searches incident to arrest in favor of a case-by-case approach); State v. Bombay, 2008-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 5, 8 , 144 2011See, e.g., Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 23 , 148 N.M. 659 , 241 P.3d 1099 (declining to adopt the Fourth Amendment private search doctrine under Article II, Section 10 due to our constitution’s “strong preference for a warrant”); Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶ 37 , 147 N.M. 134 , 217 P.3d 1032 (retaining the totality of the circumstances free-to-leave test for seizures under Article II, Section 10); Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 20 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (rejecting a bright-line rule for car searches incident to arrest in favor of a case-by-case approach); State v. Bombay, 2008-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 5, 8 , 144 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nealgreen2 sentences2011See Neal, 2007-NMSC-043, ¶ 28 , 142 N.M. 176 , 164 P.3d 57 . 2011See Neal, 2007-NMSC-043, ¶ 28 , 142 N.M. 176 , 164 P.3d 57 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bomboygreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 23 , 148 N.M. 659 , 241 P.3d 1099 (declining to adopt the Fourth Amendment private search doctrine under Article II, Section 10 due to our constitution’s “strong preference for a warrant”); Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶ 37 , 147 N.M. 134 , 217 P.3d 1032 (retaining the totality of the circumstances free-to-leave test for seizures under Article II, Section 10); Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 20 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (rejecting a bright-line rule for car searches incident to arrest in favor of a case-by-case approach); State v. Bombay, 2008-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 5, 8 , 144 2011See, e.g., Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 23 , 148 N.M. 659 , 241 P.3d 1099 (declining to adopt the Fourth Amendment private search doctrine under Article II, Section 10 due to our constitution’s “strong preference for a warrant”); Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶ 37 , 147 N.M. 134 , 217 P.3d 1032 (retaining the totality of the circumstances free-to-leave test for seizures under Article II, Section 10); Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 20 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (rejecting a bright-line rule for car searches incident to arrest in favor of a case-by-case approach); State v. Bombay, 2008-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 5, 8 , 144 | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Eger
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Dorais, 2014-NMCA-__, ¶¶ 4-5, 7, __P.3d___(No. 32,235, May 21, 2014) (concluding that the Duran presumption applies where the notice of appeal was not filed for four years following a de novo trial in the district court in an appeal from the magistrate court); Vigil, 2014-NMCA-096, ¶ 16 (applying the Duran presumption when “an untimely notice of appeal is filed following the district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision”); State v. Eger, 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 5 , 141 N.M. 379 , 155 P.3d 784 (holding that the Duran presumption of ineffectiveness of counsel applies t 2015See State v. Dorais, 2014-NMCA-__, ¶¶ 4-5, 7, __P.3d___(No. 32,235, May 21, 2014) (concluding that the Duran presumption applies where the notice of appeal was not filed for four years following a de novo trial in the district court in an appeal from the magistrate court); Vigil, 2014-NMCA-096, ¶ 16 (applying the Duran presumption when “an untimely notice of appeal is filed following the district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court decision”); State v. Eger, 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 5 , 141 N.M. 379 , 155 P.3d 784 (holding that the Duran presumption of ineffectiveness of counsel applies t | 4 | 2014–2015 |
State v. Duran
green
2 sentences2023In other words, Officer Stacy’s 17 training and experience allowed him to perceive and articulate meaning from the 18 combination of the tools when considered with the driver’s and Defendant’s conduct, 19 thereby raising his suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. 19 1 {25} When making a reasonableness determination, we must “necessarily take into 2 account the evolving circumstances with which the officer was faced.” Funderburg, 3 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 (text only) (quoting State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 36 , 4 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 , overruled on other grounds by Leyv 2023In other words, Officer Stacy’s 17 training and experience allowed him to perceive and articulate meaning from the 18 combination of the tools when considered with the driver’s and Defendant’s conduct, 19 thereby raising his suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. 19 1 {25} When making a reasonableness determination, we must “necessarily take into 2 account the evolving circumstances with which the officer was faced.” Funderburg, 3 2008-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 (text only) (quoting State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 36 , 4 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 , overruled on other grounds by Leyv | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Olguin v. State
green
2 sentences2015Cf. State v. Lope, 2014-NMCA-____, ¶ 9 (applying the Duran presumption where the notice of appeal was timely filed, but the inaction of counsel resulted in the appeal being dismissed); Olguin v. State, 1977-NMSC-034 , ¶¶ 1, 7, 90 N.M. 303 , 563 P.2d 97 (concluding that dismissal of the appeal was not warranted where counsel filed a timely notice of appeal but did not perfect the appeal because the docketing statement was not filed on time). 2015Cf. State v. Lope, 2014-NMCA-____, ¶ 9 (applying the Duran presumption where the notice of appeal was timely filed, but the inaction of counsel resulted in the appeal being dismissed); Olguin v. State, 1977-NMSC-034 , ¶¶ 1, 7, 90 N.M. 303 , 563 P.2d 97 (concluding that dismissal of the appeal was not warranted where counsel filed a timely notice of appeal but did not perfect the appeal because the docketing statement was not filed on time). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Ruth Anne E.
green
2 sentences2014Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Lorena R., 1999-NMCA-035, ¶¶ 9-10 , 126 N.M. 670 , 974 P.2d 164 (applying the Duran presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel when the notice to appeal the termination of parental rights was filed one day late). 2014Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Lorena R., 1999-NMCA-035, ¶¶ 9-10 , 126 N.M. 670 , 974 P.2d 164 (applying the Duran presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel when the notice to appeal the termination of parental rights was filed one day late). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Montoya v. Ulibarri
green
2 sentences2024The district court relied on Montoya v. Ulibarri, 2007-NMSC-035 , 142 N.M. 89 , 163 P.3d 476 , and erroneously applied the incorrect and more rigorous actual innocence standard in denying Duran’s motion for new trial. {13} When the district court erroneously tied the language of Section 31-1A-2(I) to actual innocence claims and reasoned that the DNA testing “does not implicate any other person in the crime or exculpate Petitioner,” it applied a standard more rigorous than that required for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. 2024The district court relied on Montoya v. Ulibarri, 2007-NMSC-035 , 142 N.M. 89 , 163 P.3d 476 , and erroneously applied the incorrect and more rigorous actual innocence standard in denying Duran’s motion for new trial. {13} When the district court erroneously tied the language of Section 31-1A-2(I) to actual innocence claims and reasoned that the DNA testing “does not implicate any other person in the crime or exculpate Petitioner,” it applied a standard more rigorous than that required for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Dorais
green
2 sentences2019Several years later, we applied the Duran presumption of ineffective counsel and reviewed an untimely appeal “after four years of inaction by [the d]efendant,” explaining that “[t]he first and foremost reason that the passage of time alone does not prevent application of the Duran presumption is based on the fundamental premise of that case: that the rights implicated by the presumption—the right to appeal and the right to effective assistance of counsel—protect a defendant’s fundamental liberty interest in a fair trial.” State v. Dorais, 2016-NMCA-049, ¶¶ 7-8 , 370 P.3d 771 . 2019Several years later, we applied the Duran presumption of ineffective counsel and reviewed an untimely appeal “after four years of inaction by [the d]efendant,” explaining that “[t]he first and foremost reason that the passage of time alone does not prevent application of the Duran presumption is based on the fundamental premise of that case: that the rights implicated by the presumption—the right to appeal and the right to effective assistance of counsel—protect a defendant’s fundamental liberty interest in a fair trial.” State v. Dorais, 2016-NMCA-049, ¶¶ 7-8 , 370 P.3d 771 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Govich v. North American Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Sys., Inc., 1991-NMSC-061 , ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226 , 814 P.2d 94 ; see also Santa Fe 18 Pac. 2016Sys., Inc., 1991-NMSC-061 , ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226 , 814 P.2d 94 ; see also Santa Fe 18 Pac. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Leyba
green
2 sentences2013See State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 8 410, 414 , 882 P.2d 1, 5 (1994) (holding that ordinarily, a guilty or no contest plea 9 waives a defendant’s right to appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds); State v. Leyba, 10 2009-NMCA-030 , ¶¶ 14, 17, 145 N.M. 712 , 204 P.3d 37 (applying Hodge in relation 11 to an admitted probation violation); State v. Peppers, 110 N.M. 393, 399 , 796 P.2d 12 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990) (declining to extend the Duran presumption of 13 ineffectiveness of counsel to include appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 14 DISCUSSION 15 In his memorandum in opposition Defendant notes 2013See State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 8 410, 414 , 882 P.2d 1, 5 (1994) (holding that ordinarily, a guilty or no contest plea 9 waives a defendant’s right to appeal on non-jurisdictional grounds); State v. Leyba, 10 2009-NMCA-030 , ¶¶ 14, 17, 145 N.M. 712 , 204 P.3d 37 (applying Hodge in relation 11 to an admitted probation violation); State v. Peppers, 110 N.M. 393, 399 , 796 P.2d 12 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990) (declining to extend the Duran presumption of 13 ineffectiveness of counsel to include appeals from pleas of guilty or no contest). 14 DISCUSSION 15 In his memorandum in opposition Defendant notes | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Rowell green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Garcia green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Peden green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.