State v. Paul
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,319 5 DARRYL PAUL, 6 Defendant-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCKINLEY COUNTY 8 Robert A. Aragon, District Judge 9 10 11 12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM M. Anne Kelly, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Law Works LLC 15 John A. McCall 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 18 19 FRY, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} This case is before us on remand from our Supreme Court. We previously filed 2 an opinion in this case affirming the district court’s dismissal of Defendant’s vehicular 3 homicide charge for lack of jurisdiction. State v. Paul, No. 33,319, mem. op. (N.M. 4 Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2015). The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for writ of 5 certiorari and remanded the case for reconsideration of our decision in light of State 6 v. Steven B. (Steven B. II), 2015-NMSC-020, 352 P.3d 1181. 7 {2} Because this is a memorandum opinion and because we summarized the facts 8 in our prior opinion, we do not reiterate the factual summary here. It suffices to say 9 that we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the charges against Defendant by 10 relying on our own precedent, State v. Steven B. (Steven B. I), 2013-NMCA-078, 306 11 P.3d 509, and State v. Dick, 1999-NMCA-062, 127 N.M. 382, 981 P.2d 796. In those 12 cases, we held that the area where the accident in the present case occurred—Parcel 13 Three of the former Fort Wingate Military Reservation—was a dependent Indian 14 community over which the State did not have jurisdiction. See Steven B. I, 201315 NMCA-078, ¶¶ 15-16; Dick, 1999-NMCA-062, ¶¶ 3-4. Our Supreme Court reversed 16 the holding in Steven B. I and overruled the holding in Dick in Steven B. II. 201517 NMSC-020, ¶¶ 3, 36. The Court held that Parcel Three is not a dependent Indian 18 community. Steven B. II, 2015-NMSC-020, ¶ 50. 19 {3} Because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent, see Alexander v. Delgado, 2 1 1973-NMSC-030, ¶ 9, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778, we now conclude that the district 2 court erred in dismissing the charge against Defendant. We reverse the district court’s 3 judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 4 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 __________________________________ CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8 _________________________________ 9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 10 _________________________________ 11 LINDA M. VANZI, 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.
