State v. Young
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,751 5 JAMES YOUNG, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 8 Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 11 Santa Fe, NM 12 for Appellee 13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 SUTIN, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant pled to burglary and possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving the 2 right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss. On December 4, 2014, we issued a 3 notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to reverse. 4 {2} On February 2, 2015, the State filed a response with this Court, indicating that 5 it would be filing a motion for stay with the New Mexico Supreme Court and 6 requesting that we await a decision from that Court on the State’s motion before 7 taking further action in this case. We have done so. The New Mexico Supreme Court 8 has recently denied the State’s motion. 9 {3} Although it is less than entirely clear, the State’s response may incorporate a 10 similar request that this Court stay or hold this case in abeyance pending a decision 11 from the New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Archuleta, ____-NMCA-____, ___ 12 P.3d. ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-___, ___ P.3d 13 ___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015). To the extent that such a request is made, it is 14 denied. 15 {4} Turning to the merits, we previously opined that Defendant’s conviction for 16 burglary cannot stand in light of this Court’s decision in Archuleta. The State indicates 17 that it “is unable to provide any additional facts or other legal argument in response 18 to the proposed disposition.” [MIO 2-3] 2 1 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 2 disposition, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent therewith. 3 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 __________________________________ JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 ___________________________________ 8 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9 ___________________________________ 10 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.
