STATE v. VENEGAS, 34 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Number: innmco20151214254
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 04, 2015
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 . Defendant has appealed from the revocation of his pro
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 . Defendant has appealed from the revocation of his prob..
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
Defendant has appealed from the revocation of his probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm as to the revocation, but to reverse and remand the as to the sentence in light of an apparent Linam sequencing problem. Both Defendant and the State have filed responsive memoranda. With respect to the revocation, Defendant continues to oppose to our proposed analysis, but presents nothing new in the way of argument or authority. We therefore adhere to our initial assessment of this matter. With respect to the sentence, both Defendant and the State have expressed agreement with our proposal to reverse and remand for correction.
Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we affirm the revocation of Defendant's probation, but reverse the sentence, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, concurs.
Source: Leagle
