STATE v. GISHEY, 217. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Number: innmco20140117369
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2013
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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} The State appealed from the district court's amende
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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} The State appealed from the district court's amended..
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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} The State appealed from the district court's amended order dismissing the case with prejudice on double jeopardy grounds. This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm the district court's order. The State has filed a response to this Court's notice, indicating that it will not be filing a memorandum opposing this Court's proposed disposition. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we affirm.
{¶ 2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, concurs.
Source: Leagle
