State v. Tohsonie
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-Appellant, 4 v. NO. 33,157 5 TROY TOHSONIE, 6 Defendant-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 8 John A. Dean Jr., District Judge 9 Hector H, Balderas, Attorney General 10 Margaret E. McLean, Assistant Attorney General 11 Santa Fe, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 14 Sergio Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 18 VIGIL, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} The State appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion 2 to dismiss the charge of commercial burglary. [RP 53] Our notice proposed to affirm, 3 relying on our recently decided opinion State v. Archuleta, ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d 4 ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014) (holding that “violating an order of no trespass by 5 entering an otherwise open public shopping area with the intent to commit a theft does 6 not constitute the type of harmful entry required for a violation of the burglary 7 statute”), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015). The State 8 has filed a response, objecting to our notice and requesting that we hold this appeal 9 in abeyance or provide the State with a reasonable opportunity to seek guidance from 10 the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending appeals controlled by our opinion in 11 Archuleta. [Ct.App.File, red clip] We have provided the State with such an 12 opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the State a stay or other remedy that 13 would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta. Thus, we apply Archuleta. See 14 Rule 12-405(C) NMRA (“A petition for writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 1215 502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order granting the petition does not affect the 16 precedential value of an opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by 17 the Supreme Court.”). 18 {2} In its response to our notice, the State objects to our proposed disposition, but 19 indicates that it “is unable to provide any additional facts or other legal argument in 2 1 response to the proposed disposition.” [response, red clip/2-3] Because there are no 2 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in 3 Archuleta, we affirm the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss 4 the commercial burglary charge. 5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 __________________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9 ___________________________________ 10 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 11 ___________________________________ 12 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.
