State v. Franklin
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,057 5 CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 8 William G. Shoobridge, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 Kenneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney General 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 15 B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellant 18 19 GARCIA, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant appeals following entry of the “order revoking probation and 2 imposing judgment and sentence.” [RP 173, 175] Defendant specifically appeals from 3 the district court’s ruling that denies his post-judgment challenge to the sentence for 4 untimeliness. [RP 182] Our notice proposed to reverse and remand, on the basis that 5 Defendant’s December 18, 2013, motion to amend the judgment and sentence 6 (motion) [RP 179] was a timely and outstanding Rule 5-801(B) NMRA motion that 7 the district court failed to consider on its merits. The State has notified this Court that 8 it does not oppose our notice. 9 {2} For the reasons provided in our notice, we reverse and remand for consideration 10 of the merits of Defendant’s outstanding motion. 11 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ________________________________ TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15 _______________________________ 16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 17 _______________________________ 18 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 2
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.
