State v. Chavez

Opinion

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-37344

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Alisa A. Hart, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

DECISION

IVES, Judge.

{1} At the outset of this appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice because his trial occurred outside of the 180-day period generally prescribed by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) and because there was not good cause for a continuance. See generally NMSA 1978, § 31-5-12, art. 3(A) (1971) (requiring that trial be held within 180 days unless a continuance is granted); § 31-5-12, art. 5(C) (providing that the remedy for a speedy trial violation is dismissal with prejudice). After briefing was complete, we remanded this case to the district court so that it could explain its reasons for denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In light of the district court’s explanation, Defendant now concedes that the district court did not err because Defendant, through his counsel, “effectively waived” his right to a speedy trial. Although we are not bound by Defendant’s concession, State v. Harrison, 2010-NMSC-038, ¶ 15, 148 N.M. 500, 238 P.3d 869, we accept it because our independent review reveals no reason to reject it. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Because Defendant makes no other claim of error in this appeal, we affirm his robbery conviction.

{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge

WE CONCUR:

J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge