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 case involves the State of New Mexico appealing from a district court order that dismissed a charge of commercial burglary against Delayna Chico. The appeal was stayed pending the decision in State v. Archuleta, which addressed the same legal issue related to the charge of commercial burglary (para 1).

Procedural History

• State v. Archuleta, ----NMCA----, ----P.3d---- (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT---- (No. 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015): The Court of Appeals issued a decision that has precedential value affecting the current case, leading to a stay and subsequent lifting of the stay for the present appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Objected to the proposed summary disposition by the Court of Appeals, requesting the appeal be held in abeyance or provided an opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending appeals controlled by the opinion in Archuleta (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Delayna Chico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of commercial burglary should be affirmed based on the precedential value of State v. Archuleta.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of commercial burglary (para 2).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, concurring: The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's dismissal of the commercial burglary charge against Delayna Chico, relying on the precedential value of State v. Archuleta. The State's objection to the proposed summary disposition was noted but not elaborated upon, and the Supreme Court denied the State any stay or remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta. Consequently, the Court of Appeals applied Archuleta, finding no material factual distinctions that would remove the case from its control (paras 1-2).