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.
8 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2022 2 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. Stevensongreen2 sentences2022See Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) (providing an 9 exception to the preservation rule for questions involving fundamental error); see 10 also State v. Stevenson, 2020-NMCA-005, ¶ 18 , 455 P.3d 890 (holding that 11 improperly preserved Brady issues should be analyzed for fundamental error). 2022See Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) (providing an 9 exception to the preservation rule for questions involving fundamental error); see 10 also State v. Stevenson, 2020-NMCA-005, ¶ 18 , 455 P.3d 890 (holding that 11 improperly preserved Brady issues should be analyzed for fundamental error). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pachecogreen2 sentences2010See State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA- 4 059, ¶¶ 8-9, 144 N.M. 61 , 183 P.3d 946 (stating that because a successful collateral 5 attack on a prior conviction requires a showing of fundamental error, it is the 6 defendant’s burden of producing evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those 7 convictions, not the State’s burden to prove their validity). 2010See State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA- 4 059, ¶¶ 8-9, 144 N.M. 61 , 183 P.3d 946 (stating that because a successful collateral 5 attack on a prior conviction requires a showing of fundamental error, it is the 6 defendant’s burden of producing evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those 7 convictions, not the State’s burden to prove their validity). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Franklingreen2 sentences2010Instead, relying on State 8 v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 9 N.M. 655 , 658, 712 P.2d 1, 4 (Ct. App. 1985), Defendant argues that the 1985 10 misdemeanor conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence because he was 11 without counsel at the time, and he had not executed a valid waiver of counsel. 12 The New Mexico Supreme Court case cited by the State at the sentencing 13 hearing, relied upon by the district court and by the State in the answer brief, 14 Woodruff, has addressed this issue and it is controlling authority holding contrary 2010Instead, relying on State 8 v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 9 N.M. 655 , 658, 712 P.2d 1, 4 (Ct. App. 1985), Defendant argues that the 1985 10 misdemeanor conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence because he was 11 without counsel at the time, and he had not executed a valid waiver of counsel. 12 The New Mexico Supreme Court case cited by the State at the sentencing 13 hearing, relied upon by the district court and by the State in the answer brief, 14 Woodruff, has addressed this issue and it is controlling authority holding contrary | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boyergreen1 sentence2010Instead, relying on State 8 v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 9 N.M. 655 , 658, 712 P.2d 1, 4 (Ct. App. 1985), Defendant argues that the 1985 10 misdemeanor conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence because he was 11 without counsel at the time, and he had not executed a valid waiver of counsel. 12 The New Mexico Supreme Court case cited by the State at the sentencing 13 hearing, relied upon by the district court and by the State in the answer brief, 14 Woodruff, has addressed this issue and it is controlling authority holding contrary | 1 | 1 |
State v. Villagreen2 sentences2008See State v. Villa, 2004-NMSC-031, ¶ 16 , 136 N.M. 367 , 98 P.3d 1017 (indicating that the party who raises the issue of fundamental error bears the burden of proof “showing that some fundamental right has been invaded”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {9} In Pino, 1997-NMCA-001, ¶ 14 , 122 N.M. 789 , 932 P.2d 13 , this Court specifically addressed collateral attacks on prior DWI convictions and stated the following: A defendant may not raise every conceivable error that may have led to the prior conviction, but is limited to those errors that would form the basis of a legitim 2008See State v. Villa, 2004-NMSC-031, ¶ 16 , 136 N.M. 367 , 98 P.3d 1017 (indicating that the party who raises the issue of fundamental error bears the burden of proof “showing that some fundamental right has been invaded”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {9} In Pino, 1997-NMCA-001, ¶ 14 , 122 N.M. 789 , 932 P.2d 13 , this Court specifically addressed collateral attacks on prior DWI convictions and stated the following: A defendant may not raise every conceivable error that may have led to the prior conviction, but is limited to those errors that would form the basis of a legitim | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pinogreen2 sentences2008However, as discussed below, because a successful collateral attack on a prior conviction requires a showing of fundamental error, Pino, 1997-NMCA-001, ¶ 14 , 122 N.M. 789 , 932 P.2d 13 , it was Defendant’s burden to produce evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those convictions, not the State’s burden to prove their validity. 2008However, as discussed below, because a successful collateral attack on a prior conviction requires a showing of fundamental error, Pino, 1997-NMCA-001, ¶ 14 , 122 N.M. 789 , 932 P.2d 13 , it was Defendant’s burden to produce evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those convictions, not the State’s burden to prove their validity. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bencomogreen2 sentences1992State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990). 1992State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castenedagreen2 sentences1984See generally, State v. Casteneda, 97 N.M. 670 , 642 P.2d 1129 (Ct.App.1982); NMSA 1978, Evid.R. 103. 1984See generally, State v. Casteneda, 97 N.M. 670 , 642 P.2d 1129 (Ct.App.1982); NMSA 1978, Evid.R. 103. | 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. Barber
green
2 sentences2010Fundamental error includes both “cases with 9 defendants who are indisputably innocent, and cases in which a mistake in the process 10 makes a conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the apparent guilt of the 11 accused.” State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 17 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 . 2010Fundamental error includes both “cases with 9 defendants who are indisputably innocent, and cases in which a mistake in the process 10 makes a conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the apparent guilt of the 11 accused.” State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 17 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2010Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 10 . 7 However, after concluding the issue was not preserved, this Court will not reverse 8 absent a showing of fundamental error. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Woodruff
green
1 sentence2010Instead, relying on State 8 v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 9 N.M. 655 , 658, 712 P.2d 1, 4 (Ct. App. 1985), Defendant argues that the 1985 10 misdemeanor conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence because he was 11 without counsel at the time, and he had not executed a valid waiver of counsel. 12 The New Mexico Supreme Court case cited by the State at the sentencing 13 hearing, relied upon by the district court and by the State in the answer brief, 14 Woodruff, has addressed this issue and it is controlling authority holding contrary | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Mendoza
neutral
1 sentence2008We recently said, “because a successful collateral attack on a prior conviction requires a showing of fundamental error, [it is the defendant’s burden to produce evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those convictions, not the State’s burden to prove their validity.” State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA-059, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 61 , 183 P.3d 946 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 2008-NMCERT-003 , 143 N.M. 682 , 180 P.3d 1181 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Infante
green
1 sentence2008We recently said, “because a successful collateral attack on a prior conviction requires a showing of fundamental error, [it is the defendant’s burden to produce evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those convictions, not the State’s burden to prove their validity.” State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA-059, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 61 , 183 P.3d 946 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 2008-NMCERT-003 , 143 N.M. 682 , 180 P.3d 1181 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Garcia v. Torrez
neutral
1 sentence2008We recently said, “because a successful collateral attack on a prior conviction requires a showing of fundamental error, [it is the defendant’s burden to produce evidence demonstrating the invalidity of those convictions, not the State’s burden to prove their validity.” State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA-059, ¶ 8 , 144 N.M. 61 , 183 P.3d 946 (citation omitted), cert. denied, 2008-NMCERT-003 , 143 N.M. 682 , 180 P.3d 1181 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.