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 Child-Appellant, Keisean A. (Child), entered a conditional plea following the district court's judgment and disposition. The central issue arose from the Child's motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the time limit for the trial of a child in custody, which the district court denied.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, John J. Romero, Jr., District Judge, March 1, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the time limit for the trial of a child in custody (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Indicated it would not file a memorandum in opposition to the Court of Appeals' notice of proposed disposition (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Child-Appellant's motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the time limit for the trial of a child in custody.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and disposition entered following the Child's conditional plea (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge, with concurrence from Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Emil J. Kiehne, Judge:
  The Court of Appeals decided to reverse the district court's decision based on the central contention raised by the Child-Appellant regarding the expiration of the time limit for the trial of a child in custody. The State's decision not to oppose the Court of Appeals' notice of proposed disposition further influenced the Court's final decision to reverse (para 1).