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 2 courts 2007–2019 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. Ortegagreen2 sentences2019Before the Court was the apparent tension between 12 Triggs and State v. Ortega, in which this Court stated that “[a] probation violation 13 is not a crime and does not trigger an enhancement as a habitual offender” and, 14 consequently, “enhancement at the time of the probation violation relates to the 15 district court’s sentence for the underlying crimes.” 2004-NMCA-080, ¶ 8 , 135 16 N.M. 737 , 93 P.3d 758 . 2019Before the Court was the apparent tension between 12 Triggs and State v. Ortega, in which this Court stated that “[a] probation violation 13 is not a crime and does not trigger an enhancement as a habitual offender” and, 14 consequently, “enhancement at the time of the probation violation relates to the 15 district court’s sentence for the underlying crimes.” 2004-NMCA-080, ¶ 8 , 135 16 N.M. 737 , 93 P.3d 758 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Ordunezgreen1 sentence2012See Ordunez, 2010-NMCA-095, ¶¶ 3-4 . | 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. Yazzie
green
2 sentences2019The Yazzie Court held that there was “no conflict” between 17 Ortega and Triggs because “Triggs [merely] reaffirms the discretion of the district 18 court in determining the manner in which a defendant will serve multiple 19 sentences.” Yazzie, 2018-NMCA-001, ¶ 20 . 2019The Yazzie Court held that there was “no conflict” between Ortega and Triggs because “Triggs [merely] reaffirms the discretion of the district court in determining the manner in which a defendant will serve multiple sentences.” Yazzie, 2018-NMCA-001, ¶ 20 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Padilla
green
2 sentences2007Defendant asserts that the general rule, as stated in Padilla, that a “sentencing court retains jurisdiction to revoke a suspended sentence for good cause shown at any time subsequent to the entry of judgment and prior to the expiration of the sentence” only applies to the sentence actually being served at the time of the probation violation. 106 N.M. at 422 , 744 P.2d at 550 . 2007Defendant asserts that the general rule, as stated in Padilla, that a “sentencing court retains jurisdiction to revoke a suspended sentence for good cause shown at any time subsequent to the entry of judgment and prior to the expiration of the sentence” only applies to the sentence actually being served at the time of the probation violation. 106 N.M. at 422 , 744 P.2d at 550 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.