Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kersey v. Hatchgreen2 sentences2021Stated differently, “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final” or when an appellate court’s “decision is flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent and is an explicit overruling of an earlier holding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {12} In Muqqddin, the Court explained that existing precedent regarding burglary of a vehicle wrongly expanded the scope of what could constitute the “prohibited space” of a vehicle under the burglary statute. 2012-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 1, 22-23, 32 2020To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 5 |
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2021See 2012-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 36-38 ; see also Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 (stating that “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final”). 2017The Teague Court determined that “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” 489 U.S. at 301 (emphasis omitted). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Kirbygreen2 sentences2000See Kirby, 1996-NMSC-069, ¶5 , 122 N.M. 609 , 930 P.2d 144 . 2000See Kirby, 1996-NMSC-069, ¶5 , 122 N.M. 609 , 930 P.2d 144 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Office of the Public Defender Ex Rel. Muqqddingreen2 sentences2021Stated differently, “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final” or when an appellate court’s “decision is flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent and is an explicit overruling of an earlier holding.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {12} In Muqqddin, the Court explained that existing precedent regarding burglary of a vehicle wrongly expanded the scope of what could constitute the “prohibited space” of a vehicle under the burglary statute. 2012-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 1, 22-23, 32 2021See 2012-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 36-38 ; see also Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 (stating that “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frawleyred2 sentences2010To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’ ” Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); see also State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (same); State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 (same). 2010To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’ ” Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); see also State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (same); State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ulibarrigreen2 sentences2005See State v. Ulibarri, 1999-NMCA-142 , ¶ 22, 128 N.M. 546 , 994 P.2d 1164 , aff'd, 2000-NMSC-007 , 128 N.M. 686 , 997 P.2d 818 , In Mascarenas, we recognized the difficulty of determining when a case announces a new rule but looked to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for guidance: [W]e do not attempt to define the spectrum of what may or may not constitute a new rule for retroactivity purposes. 2005See State v. Ulibarri, 1999-NMCA-142 , ¶ 22, 128 N.M. 546 , 994 P.2d 1164 , aff'd, 2000-NMSC-007 , 128 N.M. 686 , 997 P.2d 818 , In Mascarenas, we recognized the difficulty of determining when a case announces a new rule but looked to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for guidance: [W]e do not attempt to define the spectrum of what may or may not constitute a new rule for retroactivity purposes. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ulibarrigreen2 sentences2005See State v. Ulibarri, 1999-NMCA-142 , ¶ 22, 128 N.M. 546 , 994 P.2d 1164 , aff'd, 2000-NMSC-007 , 128 N.M. 686 , 997 P.2d 818 , In Mascarenas, we recognized the difficulty of determining when a case announces a new rule but looked to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for guidance: [W]e do not attempt to define the spectrum of what may or may not constitute a new rule for retroactivity purposes. 2005See State v. Ulibarri, 1999-NMCA-142 , ¶ 22, 128 N.M. 546 , 994 P.2d 1164 , aff'd, 2000-NMSC-007 , 128 N.M. 686 , 997 P.2d 818 , In Mascarenas, we recognized the difficulty of determining when a case announces a new rule but looked to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), for guidance: [W]e do not attempt to define the spectrum of what may or may not constitute a new rule for retroactivity purposes. | 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. Mascarenas
green
2 sentences2010To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’ ” Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); see also State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (same); State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 (same). 2010To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’ ” Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); see also State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (same); State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 (same). | 2 | 2005–2010 |
State v. Nunez
green
2 sentences2017The new rule “applies to cases pending on direct appeal, as long as the issue was raised and preserved below . . . .” Kersey, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 19 (citing State v. Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013 , ¶ 114, 129 N.M. 63 , 2 P.3d 264 ). 2017The new rule “applies to cases pending on direct appeal, as long as the issue was raised and preserved below . . . .” Kersey, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 19 (citing State v. Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013 , ¶ 114, 129 N.M. 63 , 2 P.3d 264 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Whorton v. Bockting
green
2 sentences2010Thus, “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is ‘flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent’ and is an ‘explicit overruling of an earlier holding.’” Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (quoting Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007)). {17} We conclude that Frazier announced a new rule because it was flatly inconsistent with our precedent governing multiple convictions for felony murder and the predicate felony. 2010Thus, “a court establishes a new rule when its decision is ‘flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent’ and is an ‘explicit overruling of an earlier holding.’” Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (quoting Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007)). {17} We conclude that Frazier announced a new rule because it was flatly inconsistent with our precedent governing multiple convictions for felony murder and the predicate felony. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Forbes
green
2 sentences2010To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’ ” Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); see also State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (same); State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 (same). 2010To put it differently, a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’ ” Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ); see also State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, ¶ 35 , 143 N.M. 7 , 172 P.3d 144 (same); State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 7 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 (same). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.