Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) granted Green Cab, LLC d/b/a Green Cab Co., (Green Cab) a certificate of authority to provide taxi service within Bernalillo County and to the rest of the state. Albuquerque Cab Co. (ABQ Cab) and Yellow Checker Cab appealed the grant of that certificate. On appeal, ABQ Cab and Yellow Cab asserted that the PRC erred by: (1) not scheduling a hearing on whether Green Cab should be issued the certificate; (2) denying their motions to intervene as "interested persons" in the Green Cab proceedings; (3) granting Green Cab authority to operate a taxi service; and (4) issuing Green Cab temporary authority to operate a taxi service in Bernalillo County to all parts of the state. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court held that the PRC committed reversible error by not holding a public hearing in which ABQ Cab and Yellow Cab could participate as intervenors, contrary to the statutory requirements of the Motor Carrier Act. Because the PRC did not follow the required procedure, the Court did not address the remaining arguments regarding Green Cab’s temporary or permanent authority. View "Albuquerque Cab Co. v. NMPRC" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a motion to quash his indictment, arguing that the district court improperly enlisted the aid of the district attorney’s office in the selection of the grand jury panel that indicted Petitioner. Agreeing that the integrity of the grand jury process was undermined by the manner in which grand jurors had been selected, the Supreme Court issued a writ of superintending control directing the district court to quash the indictment without prejudice to the State’s right to reinstate new criminal proceedings against Petitioner. Upon further review, the Supreme Court issued this opinion to explain the reasons for its decision to quash the indictment. View "de Leon v. Hartley" on Justia Law

"Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes [the New Mexico Supreme Court has] identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. [The Court held] that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law." View "Griego v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Petitioners were retired teachers, professors and other public education employees who sought a writ of mandamus against the New Mexico Education Retirement Board (ERB). They sought to compel the ERB to pay them an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to their retirement benefits, calculated according to the statutes “in effect at the time of Petitioners’ date of maturity of their rights,” instead of the current statutes as recently modified by the Legislature. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the New Mexico Constitution affords Retirees no such right, and therefore denied the writ of mandamus. View "Bartlett v. Cameron" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether the phrase "at the scene" in NMSA 1978 Section 31-1-7(A) (1995) authorized law enforcement to make a warrantless arrest for domestic violence where the alleged act took place in a different place from where a party was arrested. Defendant Daniel Almanzar was arrested without a warrant across the street from where he allegedly hit his girlfriend. After searching defendant, police found a "golf-ball-sized mass of cocaine" in his pocket. He was subsequently charged with drug trafficking. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the cocaine because he was not arrested "at the scene." The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court, after its interpretation of the legislative intent of 31-1-7(A), concluded that defendant's arrest was lawful because it was reasonably close to where the domestic violence took place. View "New Mexico v. Almanzar" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Sisneros was convicted in 2011 of first-degree murder, felony murder, shooting from a motor vehicle resulting in great bodily harm, and aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer. Sentenced to life imprisonment plus sixteen and one-half years, Defendant appealed his conviction directly to the Supreme Court. After finding that defendant was subject to Double Jeopardy, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court to vacate his convictions for felony murder and shooting from a motor vehicle and re-sentencing. View "New Mexico v. Sisneros" on Justia Law

In 2008, Defendant Andrew Miller faced sixty-one counts consisting mostly of fraud and embezzlement charges between two indictments against him. He entered into a plea agreement with the State covering both indictments, which the district court accepted. Defendant pleaded Guilty or No Contest to four second-degree felonies and two third-degree felonies. In exchange for Defendant's pleas, the State dropped all but six charges against him. The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision that the district court's sentence of Defendant Andrew Miller violated the terms of a plea agreement that the district court had accepted. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that defendant's sentence violated the plea agreement. However, the high court disagreed with the remedy that the Court of Appeals ordered and clarify case law on this account. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "New Mexico v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant Aquilino Lopez was stopped for speeding and arrested for driving with a suspended license. While performing a search incident to arrest, the arresting officer discovered a clear bag containing a green leafy substance suspected to be marijuana. During an inventory of the contents of Defendant’s car, officers discovered another bag containing a white powdery substance they believed to be cocaine. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of marijuana, and driving with a suspended or revoked license. Defendant entered a special appearance in the district court and filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to remand the case to the magistrate court for another preliminary examination. The motion alleged that the magistrate had violated Defendant’s confrontation rights under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution by admitting the forensic laboratory report into evidence at the preliminary hearing without an opportunity for the defense to personally cross-examine the laboratory analyst who prepared the report. The motion argued that as a result the district court did not have jurisdiction to proceed further in the case. After a hearing, the district court denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal directly to the Supreme Court. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that the full constitutional right of confrontation in criminal prosecutions does not apply at pretrial probable cause determinations. The right of confrontation in Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, and the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applies only at a criminal trial where guilt or innocence is determined. The Court overruled the contrary precedent of "Mascarenas v. New Mexico," (458 P.2d 789), to the extent that it held otherwise. View "New Mexico v. Lopez" on Justia Law

In this case, the district court rejected defendant Juan Pinon-Garcia's request for it to review a municipal court dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Defendant sought dismissal of the case against him because the government's key witness failed to appear for the scheduled trial. The district court also declined to independently consider defendant's motion to dismiss because the court believed it was compelled to proceed directly to a trial de novo. Because the right of appeal from courts not of record is the right to a trial or hearing de novo in district court, the Supreme Court concluded the district court must make an independent determination of the merits of the pretrial motion. "If district courts are not permitted to review a lower court’s grant or denial of potentially dispositive pretrial motions on appeal, the power of lower courts to grant relief when constitutional safeguards and procedural rules, such as speedy trial, double jeopardy, or discovery rules, are violated would be meaningless." The case was remanded to the district court for consideration of the motion to dismiss. View "City of Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia" on Justia Law

On one autumn weekend in 2008, an Albuquerque art-house movie theater hosted a film festival. The festival was titled "Pornotopia," and it featured at least one erotic or pornographic film. Other than Pornotopia, the theater showed non-pornographic films. Despite the festival's positive impact on the neighborhood and the generally non-adult nature of the host theater, the theater was convicted of a zoning violation for operating an "Adult Amusement Establishment" in an improper zone. The theater argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that its state and federal rights to free speech were violated. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "adult amusement establishment" under the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances applied only to traditional adult businesses, and not the theater which only played one weekend of erotic films during the film festival. Therefore, the Court did not reach the constitutional questions raised by the theater. View "New Mexico v. Pangaea Cinema LLC" on Justia Law