State v. Christian V.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. No. 32,892 5 CHRISTIAN V., 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 8 Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge 9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Child was charged with the delinquent act of larceny. Child filed a motion to 2 dismiss the charge on the grounds that the delay between the preliminary inquiry and 3 the filing of the delinquency petition exceeded the time permitted by NMSA 1978, 4 Section 32A-2-7(D) (2005). The district court denied Child s motion and Child 5 stipulated to having committed the larceny and was sentenced. This Court issued a 6 calendar notice proposing to affirm the district court s ruling, given that Child had 7 failed to make any showing of prejudice resulting from the delay. See § 32A-2-7(D) 8 ( If a Child is not in custody or detention, a petition shall not be dismissed for failure 9 to comply with the time limit set forth in this subsection unless there is a showing of 10 prejudice to the child. (emphasis added)). In response to this Court s proposed 11 disposition, Child has filed a notice informing this Court that he does not intend to file 12 a memorandum in opposition to this Court s notice of proposed summary affirmance, 13 but instead chooses to rely on the facts, authorities and arguments contained in his 14 initial memorandum. Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar 15 cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out 16 errors in fact or law. Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 17 955 P.2d 683. Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of 18 the disposition proposed in the calendar notice. Frick v. Veazey, 1993-NMCA-119, 2 1 ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 861 P.2d 287. As a result, for the reasons articulated in our second 2 notice of proposed disposition, we affirm. 3 2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 9 10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
