N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 12 / Article 2A
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 12-2A-16 (2026)

Effect of amendment or repeal.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. An amendment or repeal of a civil statute or rule does not affect a pending action
or proceeding or a right accrued before the amendment or repeal takes effect.

   B. A pending civil action or proceeding may be completed and a right accrued may
be enforced as if the statute or rule had not been amended or repealed.

    C. If a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an
amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or
rule as amended.

History: Laws 1997, ch. 173, § 16.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Effective dates. — Laws 1997, ch. 173 § 22 made the Uniform Statute and Rule
Construction Act effective July 1, 1997.

Adoption of amendment evidences intent to change original law. — It is a familiar
rule of statutory construction that the adoption of an amendment is evidence of an
intention by the legislature to change the provision of the original law. Cancienne, Inc. v.
Southwest Cmty. Inns, Inc., 1969-NMSC-110, 80 N.M. 512, 458 P.2d 587; Martinez v.
Research Park, Inc., 1965-NMSC-146, 75 N.M. 672, 410 P.2d 200, overruled on other
grounds by Sundance Mech. & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 1990-NMSC-031, 109 N.M. 683, 789
P.2d 1250.

Amended act must be accepted as law upon subject embraced therein; the
repealed act can be looked to only to interpret anything in which there is substantial
doubt as to meaning of the language used. Cortesy v. Territory, 1893-NMSC-008, 7
N.M. 89, 32 P. 504.

Portion of amended section not reenacted, repealed. — A statute amending a
section "so as to read as follows," repeals all that is not reenacted. Sandoval v. Board of
County Comm'rs, 1906-NMSC-028, 13 N.M. 537, 86 P. 427.

Saving clause used to retain old statute for specific purposes. — In repealing or
amending a statute the legislature may save the old statute for specified purposes by an
appropriate saving clause in the repealing or amending act. Board of Educ. v. Citizens'
Nat'l Bank, 1917-NMSC-059, 23 N.M. 205, 167 P. 715.

Legislative intent embodied in this section indicates a policy decision to apply a
reduced sentence if the penalty has not been imposed. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077,
136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293,
cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.

Section conflict with Section 30-1-2 NMSA 1978. — To the extent that this section,
enacted in 1997, and Section 30-1-2 NMSA 1978, enacted in 1963, conflict, the latter
enactment supercedes the prior. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d
8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293, cert. quashed, 2005-
NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.

Habitual Offender Act. — Article IV, Section 33, N.M. Const., does not apply to the
2002 amendment to Section 31-18-17 NMSA 1978 or to the interpretation of the
amendment through this section. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d
8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293, cert. quashed, 2005-
NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.

Applying Subsection C of this section to the 2002 amendment to Section 31-18-17
NMSA 1978, the 2002 amendment effectively reduces the potential enhanced penalties
for violating felony statutes by narrowing the definition of "prior felony conviction." State
v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006,
135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293, cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110
P.3d 74.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 2004–2020 · leading case: State v. Shay, 94 P.3d 8 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Shay, 94 P.3d 8 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 20× “” {9} Therefore, as a result of the legislative intent to reduce the potential penalties under the habitual offender provisions as indicated by the 2002 amendment to Section 31-18-17 and the intent to apply reduced penalties when the penalty has not already been imposed as…”
State v. Lucero, 163 P.3d 489 (N.M. 2007). · cites it 11× “The Court also considered NMSA 1978, Section 12-2A-16(C) (1997), which provides, “[i]f a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or rule as amended.”
State v. Smith, 98 P.3d 1022 (N.M. 2004). · cites it 4× “{6} The majority concluded that NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-16(C) (1997) required a lesser punishment to be imposed if a defendant is sentenced after the effective date of an amendment reducing the penalty.”
Cobb v. State Canvassing Bd., 2006 NMSC 034 (N.M. 2006). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-16(A), (B) (1997). We reiterate that neither Petitioners nor the State Canvassing Board claim that the amendment affects the cause of action, but both parties address the amendment in terms of whether a claim such as Petitioners’ is capable of repetition yet…”
State v. Tave, 158 P.3d 1014 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “{13} Defendant makes two arguments against this position. First, Defendant argues that Shay supports his position that the operative date for determining the ten-year period is the date of re-sentencing.”
State v. Smith, 85 P.3d 804 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “DISCUSSION {7} We hold that the sentences here are controlled by NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-16(C) (1997) which provides: "If a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or rule…”
State v. Ortega, 93 P.3d 758 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Our holding construed the legislative intent to intend the amendment to have effect as of the effective date for all crimes for which the penalty had not already been imposed based in part on NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-16(C) (1997), which states that “[i]f a criminal penalty for a…”
State v. Lucero, 2006 NMCA 114 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, Section 12-2A-16(C) (1997) directs: “If a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or rule as amended.”
State v. Stanford, 2004 NMCA 071 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “They were convicted and sentenced after July 1, 2002. Id.”
Aeda v. Aeda, 2013 NMCA 95 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). “See § 12-2A-16(A), (B) (“A pending civil action or proceeding may be completed and a right accrued may be enforced as if the statute or rule had not been amended or repealed.”
State v. Lucero, 142 P.3d 915 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, Section 12-2A-16(C) (1997) directs: "If a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or rule as amended.”
Sedillo v. New Mexico Racing Comm'n (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “2 Instead, Section 12-2A-16(A) controls. That section states, “[a]n amendment or repeal 3 of a civil statute or rule does not affect a pending action or proceeding or a right 4 accrued before the amendment or repeal takes effect.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— N.M. Stat. § 12-2A-16(A) — 7 cases
Cobb v. State Canvassing Bd., 2006 NMSC 034 (N.M. 2006). “NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-16(A), (B) (1997). We reiterate that neither Petitioners nor the State Canvassing Board claim that the amendment affects the cause of action, but both parties address the amendment in terms of whether a claim such as Petitioners’ is capable of repetition yet…”
Aeda v. Aeda, 2013 NMCA 95 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). “See § 12-2A-16(A), (B) (“A pending civil action or proceeding may be completed and a right accrued may be enforced as if the statute or rule had not been amended or repealed.”
Aeda v. Aeda, 2013 NMCA 095 (N.M. 2013).
Garcia v. Martinez (D.N.M. 2020).
Sedillo v. New Mexico Racing Comm'n (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). “2 Instead, Section 12-2A-16(A) controls. That section states, “[a]n amendment or repeal 3 of a civil statute or rule does not affect a pending action or proceeding or a right 4 accrued before the amendment or repeal takes effect.”
— N.M. Stat. § 12-2A-16(C) — 10 cases
State v. Lucero, 163 P.3d 489 (N.M. 2007). “The Court also considered NMSA 1978, Section 12-2A-16(C) (1997), which provides, “[i]f a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or rule as amended.”
State v. Shay, 94 P.3d 8 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). “” {9} Therefore, as a result of the legislative intent to reduce the potential penalties under the habitual offender provisions as indicated by the 2002 amendment to Section 31-18-17 and the intent to apply reduced penalties when the penalty has not already been imposed as…”
State v. Smith, 98 P.3d 1022 (N.M. 2004). “{6} The majority concluded that NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-16(C) (1997) required a lesser punishment to be imposed if a defendant is sentenced after the effective date of an amendment reducing the penalty.”
State v. Tave, 158 P.3d 1014 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “{13} Defendant makes two arguments against this position. First, Defendant argues that Shay supports his position that the operative date for determining the ten-year period is the date of re-sentencing.”
State v. Smith, 85 P.3d 804 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). “DISCUSSION {7} We hold that the sentences here are controlled by NMSA 1978, § 12-2A-16(C) (1997) which provides: "If a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or rule…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.