AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with two second-degree felonies related to embezzlement and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle, involving conduct that occurred between December 19, 2011, and January 22, 2013. The initial criminal complaint was filed timely but was dismissed for improper venue. The charges were later refiled in a different venue after the statute of limitations had expired (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, June 11, 2019: The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss both counts without prejudice for improper venue (para 2).
• Thirteenth Judicial District Court in Sandoval County, August 1, 2019: A grand jury indicted Defendant on the same charges (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the statute of limitations had expired and that the Legislature intended for Section 30-1-9 to govern the tolling of criminal statutes of limitation, thus precluding the refiling of charges after the statute of limitations had expired (para 4).
• State: Contended that under State v. Martinez and Section 30-1-9, nonstatutory tolling could extend the statute of limitations beyond its expiration, allowing for the refiling of charges in the proper venue (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute of limitations for the charged felonies was tolled by the initial filing in an improper venue, allowing for the charges to be refiled in the correct venue after the statute of limitations had expired (para 1).
• Whether nonstatutory tolling principles apply to extend the statute of limitations in criminal cases under New Mexico law (para 11).

Disposition

• The Court vacated Defendant’s convictions and remanded for dismissal of the time-barred charges (para 16).

Reasons

• The Court concluded that Section 30-1-9 did not apply to exclude the period between the dismissed complaint and the refiled charges, and no nonstatutory tolling principles extended the statute of limitations. The Court found that the Legislature intended to limit the opportunities for tolling of limitation periods to those explicitly identified in Section 30-1-9. The Court disagreed with the State's interpretation of Martinez and the application of nonstatutory tolling principles, emphasizing the substantive right of a defendant to rely on the statute of limitations. The Court also addressed the State's arguments regarding the potential absurdity and policy implications of its interpretation but found them unpersuasive (paras 5-15).