State v. Pierson
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,898 5 SANDRA PIERSON, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge 9 10 11 12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Geoffrey D. Scovil 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 18 SUTIN, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Sandra Pierson appeals from the district court’s judgment, sentence, 2 partially suspended sentence, and commitment to the New Mexico Department of 3 Corrections entered on June 5, 2014. As set forth in the judgment and sentence, 4 Defendant was convicted of the identified crimes, pursuant to guilty plea, in the 5 following cases: D-202-CR-2010-03521 (forgery); D-202-CR-2010-03811 (unlawful 6 taking of a motor vehicle); D-202-CR-2010-04398 (residential burglary); D-202-CR7 2012-01086 (racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and two counts of 8 forgery); and D-202-CR-2012-01087 (receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle). This 9 Court issued a calendar notice, proposing to reverse the district court’s judgment and 10 sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with the plea agreement. The 11 State filed a memorandum in response to our notice [Ct. App. File], stating that it 12 “does not oppose this Court’s proposed summary disposition[.]” [MIO 1] 13 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition, we reverse 14 and remand to the district court for resentencing and entry of a new judgment and 15 sentence that conforms with the plea agreement. 16 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 WE CONCUR: __________________________________ JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 20 _______________________________ 2 1 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 2 _______________________________ 3 CYNTHIA A. FRY, 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.
