15 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cottongreen2 sentences2013See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632-33 (2002) (declining to reverse an unpreserved Apprendi error because the evidence of the element that was omitted from the jury instruction “was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) and therefore its omission “did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”). 2013See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632-33 (2002) (declining to reverse an unpreserved Apprendi error because the evidence of the element that was omitted from the jury instruction “was overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) and therefore its omission “did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”). | 3 | 3 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2005Apprendi held: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 ; Blakely, 542 U.S. at-•, 124 S.Ct. at 2536 (quoting the Apprendi rule). 2005Apprendi held: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 ; Blakely, 542 U.S. at-•, 124 S.Ct. at 2536 (quoting the Apprendi rule). | 2 | 3 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2010If anything, the Court strengthened the Apprendi rule when, in response to the State of Washington’s defense of its sentencing scheme, 2 it clarified that the “statutory maximum” beyond which a judge, as opposed to a jury, may not increase a sentence is “the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 . 2010If anything, the Court strengthened the Apprendi rule when, in response to the State of Washington’s defense of its sentencing scheme, 2 it clarified that the “statutory maximum” beyond which a judge, as opposed to a jury, may not increase a sentence is “the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 . | 1 | 4 |
United States v. Bookergreen2 sentences2010But see Booker, 543 U.S. at 249-50 , 125 S.Ct. 738 (remedying the constitutional defect of the federal sentencing guidelines by excising the provision requiring their mandatory application). {22} The Court did not flinch or deviate from the binary, black-or-white Apprendi analysis. 2010But see Booker, 543 U.S. at 249-50 , 125 S.Ct. 738 (remedying the constitutional defect of the federal sentencing guidelines by excising the provision requiring their mandatory application). {22} The Court did not flinch or deviate from the binary, black-or-white Apprendi analysis. | 1 | 2 |
Oregon v. Icegreen2 sentences2010Oregon v. Ice Defines the Outer Limit of the Apprendi Rule {25} In 2009, the Supreme Court finally marked the outer limit of the Apprendi rule in Ice, 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 , and in so doing reframed our analysis. 2010Oregon v. Ice Defines the Outer Limit of the Apprendi Rule {25} In 2009, the Supreme Court finally marked the outer limit of the Apprendi rule in Ice, 555 U.S. 160 , 129 S.Ct. 711 , 172 L.Ed.2d 517 , and in so doing reframed our analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Santillanes v. Stategreen2 sentences2010We also held that our 10 ruling created a new rule and that it would “apply only to new cases and those that are 11 on direct review where the Apprendi issue has been preserved for appeal.” Id. 12 Our Supreme Court has previously explained that in order to properly preserve 13 a claim for a new rule to apply, the issue must be “raised and preserved below.” 14 Santillanes v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 225 , 849 P.2d 358, 368 (1993). 2010We also held that our 10 ruling created a new rule and that it would “apply only to new cases and those that are 11 on direct review where the Apprendi issue has been preserved for appeal.” Id. 12 Our Supreme Court has previously explained that in order to properly preserve 13 a claim for a new rule to apply, the issue must be “raised and preserved below.” 14 Santillanes v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 225 , 849 P.2d 358, 368 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Tafoyagreen2 sentences2010See Gonzales, 515 F.3d at 1114 (holding on habeas review that the findings required by Section 32A-2-20 do not violate the Apprendi rule). 2010See Gonzales, 515 F.3d at 1114 (holding on habeas review that the findings required by Section 32A-2-20 do not violate the Apprendi rule). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Bookergreen2 sentences2010But see Booker, 543 U.S. at 249-50 , 125 S.Ct. 738 (remedying the constitutional defect of the federal sentencing guidelines by excising the provision requiring their mandatory application). {22} The Court did not flinch or deviate from the binary, black-or-white Apprendi analysis. 2010But see Booker, 543 U.S. at 249-50 , 125 S.Ct. 738 (remedying the constitutional defect of the federal sentencing guidelines by excising the provision requiring their mandatory application). {22} The Court did not flinch or deviate from the binary, black-or-white Apprendi analysis. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pieri
green
2 sentences2018We do not overturn precedent lightly, but where our analysis "convincingly demonstrates that a past decision is wrong, the Court has not hesitated to overrule even recent precedent." State v. Pieri , 2009-NMSC-019 , ¶ 21, 146 N.M. 155 , 207 P.3d 1132 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (reviewing factors that may be relevant to overruling precedent). 2018We do not overturn precedent lightly, but where our analysis "convincingly demonstrates that a past decision is wrong, the Court has not hesitated to overrule even recent precedent." State v. Pieri , 2009-NMSC-019 , ¶ 21, 146 N.M. 155 , 207 P.3d 1132 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (reviewing factors that may be relevant to overruling precedent). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2005Survival of Morales {11} The Apprendi doctrine states, “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Wilson, 2001-NMCA-032, ¶12 , 130 N.M. 319 , 24 P.3d 351 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2005Survival of Morales {11} The Apprendi doctrine states, “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Wilson, 2001-NMCA-032, ¶12 , 130 N.M. 319 , 24 P.3d 351 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2001–2005 |
Cunningham v. California
green
2 sentences2010The Court intended its rule to apply literally, regardless of what some warned as “the collateral, widespread harm to the criminal justice system and the corrections process, ... resulting from the Court’s wooden, unyielding insistence on expanding the Apprendi doctrine far beyond its necessary boundaries.” Cunningham, 549 U.S. at 295 , 127 S.Ct. 856 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). {23} More than once this Court has wrestled with the Apprendi rule, most recently in State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 , where we were compelled to apply the Supreme Court’s approach to criminal 2010The Court intended its rule to apply literally, regardless of what some warned as “the collateral, widespread harm to the criminal justice system and the corrections process, ... resulting from the Court’s wooden, unyielding insistence on expanding the Apprendi doctrine far beyond its necessary boundaries.” Cunningham, 549 U.S. at 295 , 127 S.Ct. 856 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). {23} More than once this Court has wrestled with the Apprendi rule, most recently in State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 , where we were compelled to apply the Supreme Court’s approach to criminal | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. RUDY B.
green
1 sentence2010We also held that our 10 ruling created a new rule and that it would “apply only to new cases and those that are 11 on direct review where the Apprendi issue has been preserved for appeal.” Id. 12 Our Supreme Court has previously explained that in order to properly preserve 13 a claim for a new rule to apply, the issue must be “raised and preserved below.” 14 Santillanes v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 225 , 849 P.2d 358, 368 (1993). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2010“Parties alleging 9 fundamental error must demonstrate the existence of circumstances that shock the 10 conscience or implicate a fundamental unfairness within the system that would 11 undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC- 12 009, ¶ 21, 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 (internal quotation marks and citation 13 omitted). 2010“Parties alleging 9 fundamental error must demonstrate the existence of circumstances that shock the 10 conscience or implicate a fundamental unfairness within the system that would 11 undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC- 12 009, ¶ 21, 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 (internal quotation marks and citation 13 omitted). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Frawley
red
2 sentences2010The Court intended its rule to apply literally, regardless of what some warned as “the collateral, widespread harm to the criminal justice system and the corrections process, ... resulting from the Court’s wooden, unyielding insistence on expanding the Apprendi doctrine far beyond its necessary boundaries.” Cunningham, 549 U.S. at 295 , 127 S.Ct. 856 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). {23} More than once this Court has wrestled with the Apprendi rule, most recently in State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 , where we were compelled to apply the Supreme Court’s approach to criminal 2010The Court intended its rule to apply literally, regardless of what some warned as “the collateral, widespread harm to the criminal justice system and the corrections process, ... resulting from the Court’s wooden, unyielding insistence on expanding the Apprendi doctrine far beyond its necessary boundaries.” Cunningham, 549 U.S. at 295 , 127 S.Ct. 856 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). {23} More than once this Court has wrestled with the Apprendi rule, most recently in State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 , where we were compelled to apply the Supreme Court’s approach to criminal | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2010And yet, the Court looked beyond just the obvious, arithmetic impact on sentencing to explore the historical roots — and the limits— of the Apprendi rule. {32} Though we have struggled before in our efforts to divine how the Supreme Court would apply its rule, see Lopez, 2005-NMSC-036 , 138 N.M. 521 , 123 P.3d 754 , we take Ice at face value and the majority at its word. 2010And yet, the Court looked beyond just the obvious, arithmetic impact on sentencing to explore the historical roots — and the limits— of the Apprendi rule. {32} Though we have struggled before in our efforts to divine how the Supreme Court would apply its rule, see Lopez, 2005-NMSC-036 , 138 N.M. 521 , 123 P.3d 754 , we take Ice at face value and the majority at its word. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. McDonald
green
2 sentences2004State v. McDonald, 2003-NMCA-123, ¶¶7-17 , 134 N.M. 486 , 79 P.3d 830 . 2004State v. McDonald, 2003-NMCA-123, ¶¶7-17 , 134 N.M. 486 , 79 P.3d 830 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Gary Friedman
green
2 sentences2004“On the evidence of record, no reasonable jury could have found the Friedmans guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the ITAR crimes — as the jury did in this case — and simultaneously found that the Friedmans were not responsible for the deaths of [the victims].” Friedman, 300 F.3d at 128 . {12} Applying Friedman and Neder to this case, we conclude that the court’s Apprendi error was harmless in this instance. 2004“On the evidence of record, no reasonable jury could have found the Friedmans guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the ITAR crimes — as the jury did in this case — and simultaneously found that the Friedmans were not responsible for the deaths of [the victims].” Friedman, 300 F.3d at 128 . {12} Applying Friedman and Neder to this case, we conclude that the court’s Apprendi error was harmless in this instance. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Guerro
green
2 sentences2003For example, State v. Guerro, 1999-NMCA-026, ¶ 11 , 126 N.M. 699 , 974 P.2d 669 , simply followed the holding in Shije that the absence of the “resulting in death” language from a criminal statute — -there the vehicular homicide statute — did not preclude sentencing under Section 31-18-15(A)(2). 2003For example, State v. Guerro, 1999-NMCA-026, ¶ 11 , 126 N.M. 699 , 974 P.2d 669 , simply followed the holding in Shije that the absence of the “resulting in death” language from a criminal statute — -there the vehicular homicide statute — did not preclude sentencing under Section 31-18-15(A)(2). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.