State v. Aguilera
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 8 Plaintiff-Appellee, 9 v. NO. 30,799 10 LORENZO AGUILERA, 11 Defendant-Appellant. 12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÃ A ANA COUNTY 13 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge 14 Gary K. King, Attorney General 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Chief Public Defender 18 Kimberly Chavez Cook, Assistant Appellate Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 KENNEDY, Judge. 23 Defendant appeals the district court s order setting Defendant s case for bench 24 trial and denying Defendant s appeal from a magistrate court order rejecting his 1 request for a jury trial. [RP 82] We issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss the 2 appeal because it appears a final order was never entered in magistrate court. 3 Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We remain persuaded as to the 4 proposed outcome and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated in the calendar notice. 5 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant urges this Court to reach the 6 merits of Defendant s appeal. He argues Defendant s appeal should not be postponed 7 merely to satisfy the technical requirement of a written order. While we acknowledge 8 we are concerned by the implication to Defendant of the apparent practice of 9 postponing the sentencing phase in cases of conditional pleas in some magistrate 10 courts, we decline to make an exception as to the requirement of a final written order 11 in this case. 12 As more fully outlined in our calendar notice, the long-standing rule in New 13 Mexico is that in criminal cases, the judgment is final for the purpose of appeal when 14 it terminates the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing to be done but 15 [enforcement] . . . . A sentence must be imposed to complete the steps of the 16 prosecution. State v. Durant, 2000-NMCA-066, ¶ 5, 129 N.M. 345, 7 P.3d 495 17 (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks and citations 18 omitted). Therefore, the final judgment in criminal cases either adjudicates the 19 defendant guilty and imposes, suspends, or defers sentence or dismisses the charges. 2 1 Id.; see also State v. Celusniak, 2004-NMCA-070, ¶ 14, 135 N.M. 728, 93 P.3d 10 2 (reiterating that the final judgment in a criminal case either convicts the defendant of 3 a criminal offense and imposes, suspends, or defers sentence or dismisses the charges 4 against the defendant). This is not a requirement that is litigated on a case-by-case 5 basis. State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 22, 144 N.M. 297, 187 P.3d 162. 6 We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. Once a final order has 7 been entered, Defendant may appeal in accordance with our Rules of Appellate 8 procedure. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 ___________________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13 ___________________________ 14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 15 ___________________________ 16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, 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.
