speedy sentencing claim (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

speedy sentencing claim in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2021 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Browngreen
nmctapp · 2003 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010See Brown, 2003-NMCA-110, ¶ 11 (applying the four-factor 8 balancing test for a speedy trial violation to a speedy sentencing violation).

2009We have 3 considered Defendant’s arguments and, as we are not persuaded by them, we now 4 affirm. 5 In evaluating a speedy sentencing claim, “we balance, in light of the facts and 6 circumstances of the particular case, (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the 7 delay, (3) the assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to [the] defendant.” State v. 8 Brown, 2003-NMCA-110, ¶ 11 , 134 N.M. 356 , 76 P.3d 1113 .

12
Filimon Castillo Perez v. George E. Sullivan, Warden, and Attorney General, State of New Mexicogreen
ca10 · 1986 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003
2 sentences

2003We therefore weigh this factor in Defendant’s favor. {17} In a speedy sentencing claim, the prejudice to defendant must be “substantial and demonstrable.” Perez, 793 F.2d at 256 (footnote omitted); State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 61 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (Ct.App.2002); Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 23, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 .

2003Because the showing of prejudice is critical in a speedy sentencing claim, see Perez, 793 F.2d at 256 ; Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 61 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 ; Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 23, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 , and because the record does not support a finding of prejudice to Defendant, we need not analyze the remaining factors.

12
State v. Gibsongreen
nmctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002There must also be evidence of a “nexus between the undue delay and the prejudice claimed.” Id. ¶ 29. {62} Similarly, in order to prevail on a due process claim related to a delay in such proceedings, a defendant “ ‘must prove prejudice and an intentional delay by the State to gain a tactical advantage.’ ” Id. ¶ 30 (quoting State v. Gibson, 113 N.M. 547, 559 , 828 P.2d 980, 992 (Ct.App.1992)).

2002There must also be evidence of a “nexus between the undue delay and the prejudice claimed.” Id. ¶ 29. {62} Similarly, in order to prevail on a due process claim related to a delay in such proceedings, a defendant “ ‘must prove prejudice and an intentional delay by the State to gain a tactical advantage.’ ” Id. ¶ 30 (quoting State v. Gibson, 113 N.M. 547, 559 , 828 P.2d 980, 992 (Ct.App.1992)).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Todisco green
nmctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2003We therefore weigh this factor in Defendant’s favor. {17} In a speedy sentencing claim, the prejudice to defendant must be “substantial and demonstrable.” Perez, 793 F.2d at 256 (footnote omitted); State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 61 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (Ct.App.2002); Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 23, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 .

2003We therefore weigh this factor in Defendant’s favor. {17} In a speedy sentencing claim, the prejudice to defendant must be “substantial and demonstrable.” Perez, 793 F.2d at 256 (footnote omitted); State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 61 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (Ct.App.2002); Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 23, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 .

22003–2011
State v. Lopez green
nmctapp · 2017
1 sentence

2021Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, ¶ 14 . {25} Here, as in his speedy trial arguments, Defendant has failed to articulate with any specificity that a delay in sentencing was prejudicial.

12021–2021
State v. Massengill green
nmctapp · 2002
2 sentences

2003We therefore weigh this factor in Defendant’s favor. {17} In a speedy sentencing claim, the prejudice to defendant must be “substantial and demonstrable.” Perez, 793 F.2d at 256 (footnote omitted); State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 61 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (Ct.App.2002); Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 23, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 .

2003We therefore weigh this factor in Defendant’s favor. {17} In a speedy sentencing claim, the prejudice to defendant must be “substantial and demonstrable.” Perez, 793 F.2d at 256 (footnote omitted); State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 61 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (Ct.App.2002); Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 23, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 .

12003–2003

Where else courts name it

NM 6 (2002–2021) PA 2 (2012–2020) CO 2 (2014–2014) MT 2 (2015–2015) AK 2 (1997–1997)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check