State v. Anderson
This text of State v. Anderson (State v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-37316
5 RUBEN SOLIS ANDERSON,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 8 Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 13 C. David Henderson, Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellant
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VANZI, Chief Judge.
18 {1} Defendant appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss
19 the fugitive complaint. This Court’s calendar notice proposed summary dismissal on
20 the basis that the district court’s order denying the motion to dismiss the fugitive 1 complaint is not a final, appealable order. Defense counsel filed a memorandum in
2 support of summary dismissal conceding that the order is not final. [MIS 1] Defense
3 counsel states that to the extent Defendant argued that the challenged order improperly
4 deprived him of his liberty, proceedings to obtain his release continued after the notice
5 of appeal was filed. [MIS 2] Defense counsel further indicates that to his knowledge,
6 Defendant’s release was obtained, providing the remedy sought on appeal and
7 rendering the issues raised in the docketing statement moot. [MIS 1] Accordingly, for
8 these reasons, and those stated in the notice of proposed disposition, we dismiss the
9 appeal.
10 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 12 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
13 WE CONCUR:
14 15 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
16 17 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-nmctapp-2019.