Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,517 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
City of Santa Fe v. Marquez - cited by 92 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. MONAFO
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN BENNETT MONAFO,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 32,315
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
November 15, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY, Freddie
J. Romero, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Ann M. Harvey, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
John Monafo, Roswell, NM, Pro Se Appellee
JUDGES
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
The State appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress and the order denying the State’s motion for reconsideration. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm because the State’s appeal of the merits is barred by principles of double jeopardy. See City of Santa Fe v. Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 12, 28, 285 P.3d 637.
The State has filed a response conceding that, in accordance with our Supreme Court’s decision in Marquez, the district court’s order in this case granting Defendant’s post-trial motion to suppress and declaring Defendant “not guilty on all counts” prohibits any further prosecution. See id. [Resp. 2-3] Thus, the State does not oppose our proposed disposition to summarily affirm.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress and the order denying the State’s motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge