State v. Franco

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 19, 2012
Docket32,346
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Franco (State v. Franco) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Franco, (N.M. Ct. App. 2012).

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-Appellant,

4 v. No. 32,346

5 MARQUIS FRANCO,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 8 Freddie J. Romero, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Margaret E. McLean, Assistant Attorney General 11 Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney General 12 Santa Fe, NM

13 for Appellant

14 Jacqueline Cooper, Chief Public Defender 15 Nancy Hewitt, Assistant Appellate Defender 16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellee

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 SUTIN, Judge. 1 The State appeals from a district court order suppressing evidence. We issued

2 a calendar notice proposing to affirm. The State has filed a suggestion of death,

3 indicating that Defendant has died. See Rule 12-301(A) NMRA. The State has also

4 filed a response, indicating it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition. Rule 12-

5 301(A) gives this Court discretion in deciding how to proceed after notification of the

6 death of a party. See Henry v. Daniel, 2004-NMCA-016, ¶ 15, 135 N.M. 261, 87 P.3d

7 541 (discussing this Court’s discretion to resolve appeal on the merits following death

8 of a party). In light of the foregoing, this appeal is dismissed as moot.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 __________________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

12 WE CONCUR:

13 _______________________________ 14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

15 _______________________________ 16 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles
87 P.3d 1 (California Supreme Court, 2004)
Henry v. Daniel
2004 NMCA 016 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Franco, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-franco-nmctapp-2012.