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.
6 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2019See State v Montoya, 2011-NMCA-009 , 149 N.M. 242 , 247 P.3d 1127 . 2019See State v Montoya, 2011-NMCA-009 , 149 N.M. 242 , 247 P.3d 1127 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Aragongreen2 sentences2019See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness in the trial court’s rulings and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate trial court error). {5} Defendant contends that this Court’s reliance on Rule 5-805(L) for the proposition that dismissal is discretionary “impermissibly modifies the rule by reference to another provision of the rule that is not implicated and is therefore inapplicable.” [MIO 2] However, as cited above, Rule 5-805(L) specifically refers to “any release of the probationer that may be required by Paragraphs G 2019See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that we presume correctness in the trial court’s rulings and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate trial court error). {5} Defendant contends that this Court’s reliance on Rule 5-805(L) for the proposition that dismissal is discretionary “impermissibly modifies the rule by reference to another provision of the rule that is not implicated and is therefore inapplicable.” [MIO 2] However, as cited above, Rule 5-805(L) specifically refers to “any release of the probationer that may be required by Paragraphs G | 1 | 1 |
State v. Freedgreen1 sentence2017See 4 In re Ernesto M., 1996-NMCA-039 , ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562 , 915 P.2d 318 (“An assertion 5 of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”). 6 {5} Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Defendant’s probation. 7 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 J. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Ernesto M., Jr.green1 sentence2017See 4 In re Ernesto M., 1996-NMCA-039 , ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562 , 915 P.2d 318 (“An assertion 5 of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”). 6 {5} Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Defendant’s probation. 7 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 J. | 1 | 1 |
H-B-S Partnership v. Aircoa Hospitality Services, Inc.green2 sentences2010See H-B-S P’ship, 2008-NMCA-013, ¶ 10 , 143 N.M. 404 , 176 P.3d 1136 (stating that we seek to “give effect to the Supreme Court’s intent” in interpreting rules). {12} When we read the language of Subsection L together with the other provisions of the rule, we understand the intent of the rule to require dismissal if the adjudicatory hearing is not held within a timely manner based on the time limits of the rule. 2010See H-B-S P’ship, 2008-NMCA-013, ¶ 10 , 143 N.M. 404 , 176 P.3d 1136 (stating that we seek to “give effect to the Supreme Court’s intent” in interpreting rules). {12} When we read the language of Subsection L together with the other provisions of the rule, we understand the intent of the rule to require dismissal if the adjudicatory hearing is not held within a timely manner based on the time limits of the rule. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sandoval v. Chrysler Corp.
green
2 sentences2020Defendant acknowledges that discretion, but now argues it is impossible to know whether the district court abused its discretion without specific findings explaining its rationale. [MIO 3] In this regard, Defendant asserts that the State’s failure to secure his appearance does not constitute good grounds, but he cites no relevant authority for his contention. [MIO 4] See State v. Vigil-Giron, 2014-NMCA- 069, ¶ 60, 327 P.3d 1129 (“[A]ppellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue and that, given no cited authority, we assume no such authority exists. 2020Defendant acknowledges that discretion, but now argues it is impossible to know whether the district court abused its discretion without specific findings explaining its rationale. [MIO 3] In this regard, Defendant asserts that the State’s failure to secure his appearance does not constitute good grounds, but he cites no relevant authority for his contention. [MIO 4] See State v. Vigil-Giron, 2014-NMCA- 069, ¶ 60, 327 P.3d 1129 (“[A]ppellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue and that, given no cited authority, we assume no such authority exists. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Salenas
green
1 sentence2019Id. (“[T]he court may dismiss the motion to revoke probation for violating any of the time limits in this rule.” (emphasis added)). [MIO 10] However, he requests we rely on a case interpreting a previous version of the rule, at which point dismissal was required. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Neal
green
2 sentences2017But see Rule 5-805(L) (“[T]he court may dismiss the motion 15 to revoke probation for violating any of the time limits in this rule.” (emphasis 16 added)). 17 {4} Issue 2: As discussed in our notice of proposed disposition, “in order to 18 establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.” State v. Neal, 19 2007-NMCA-086, ¶ 42 , 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 . [See CN 4] We note that 2 1 Defendant “contends that he was prejudiced by the delay in this case because he was 2 held in detention, mostly in the county jail, for the entire duration of the delay” [MIO 3 2]; however, 2017But see Rule 5-805(L) (“[T]he court may dismiss the motion 15 to revoke probation for violating any of the time limits in this rule.” (emphasis 16 added)). 17 {4} Issue 2: As discussed in our notice of proposed disposition, “in order to 18 establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.” State v. Neal, 19 2007-NMCA-086, ¶ 42 , 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 . [See CN 4] We note that 2 1 Defendant “contends that he was prejudiced by the delay in this case because he was 2 held in detention, mostly in the county jail, for the entire duration of the delay” [MIO 3 2]; however, | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Town of Bernalillo v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2011Cf. Garcia, 118 N.M. 16 1 at 613, 884 P.2d at 504 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.