STATE v. GALLEGOS, 35 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Number: innmco20170215428
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2017
Summary: 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. MEMORANDUM OPINION VIGIL , Judge . {1} Defendant appealed from a judgment and sentence.
Summary: 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. MEMORANDUM OPINION VIGIL , Judge . {1} Defendant appealed from a judgment and sentence. ..
More
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIGIL, Judge.
{1} Defendant appealed from a judgment and sentence. We issued a second calendar notice continuing to propose to affirm as to the issues initially raised in the docketing statement, but granting Defendant's motion to amend and proposing to reverse as to the newly-raised issue, by which Defendant advanced a double jeopardy challenge.
{2} Defendant has filed a responsive memorandum in which no new facts, arguments, or authorities are presented. The State has filed a responsive document indicating that it does not oppose.
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated in the notices of proposed summary disposition, we reject the various issues and arguments initially advanced in the docketing statement. However, with respect to the double jeopardy challenge, we reverse and remand to the district court with instruction to vacate one of the convictions and re-sentence Defendant accordingly.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge and JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, concurs.
Source: Leagle
