State v. Melton (Unpublished Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. A-1-CA-39666 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDALL MELTON, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Harrison, Hart & Davis, LLC Nicholas T. Hart Albuquerque, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION IVES, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for harboring or aiding a felon, arguing inter alia that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. After Defendant filed his brief in chief, the Federal District Court for the District Court of New Mexico issued a memorandum opinion and order, suppressing the evidence in a federal prosecution of Defendant on federal charges that were based on the same facts and events that gave rise to Defendant’s state charges and suppression motion in the current case. The State filed an answer brief in the current case expressing its agreement with the federal district court’s analysis and stating that this Court should vacate Defendant’s conviction and need not address Defendant’s other arguments regarding the jury instructions. [AB 2] On the basis of the State’s concession and the federal district court’s opinion, Defendant filed an unopposed motion for issuance of an expedited opinion vacating his conviction and for expedited mandate. Having independently reviewed the federal district court’s opinion and the record on appeal, we agree that suppression was wrongfully denied and that Defendant’s conviction should be vacated expeditiously. In light of the parties’ agreement on this matter, we agree to expedite mandate. {2} Accordingly, we grant Defendant’s motion, vacate Defendant’s conviction for harboring or aiding a felon, and remand to the district court. Mandate shall issue forthwith. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge WE CONCUR: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge
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.
