State v. Banks (Unpublished Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. A-1-CA-38292 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEBRYANT BANKS, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Lee A. Kirksey, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Lauren J. Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Victor E. Sanchez, Jr., Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION VANZI, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals the district court’s judgment and sentence and commitment to the New Mexico Department of Corrections based upon the court’s determination that Defendant’s conviction for robbery was a “serious violent offense,” pursuant to the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), NMSA 1978, Section 33-2-34(L)(4)(o)(13) (2015). This Court filed a notice of proposed disposition proposing to reverse and remand on the basis that it is for the district court in the first instance to make findings related to its application of the EMDA, and therefore, absent any such findings, this Court is unable to review whether the district court abused its discretion. [CN 2-3] The State filed a notice of non-opposition, indicating that it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition to the notice of proposed disposition. Defendant filed a notice of intent not to file a memorandum in support, but did not otherwise expressly indicate its opposition or point to any error in fact or law with the proposed disposition. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. {2} We therefore reverse and remand to the district court for consideration of whether the facts in the record support a determination that Defendant’s robbery conviction constituted a serious violent offense under the EMDA and for entry of findings in that regard. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. LINDA M. VANZI, Judge WE CONCUR: KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
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.
