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 convicted for trafficking controlled substances (possession with intent to distribute) for the second time and tampering with evidence. Additionally, his sentence was enhanced for being a habitual offender. The appeal concerns the finality of the judgment and sentence due to ongoing proceedings in a separate but related case that could affect the sentence enhancement for being a habitual offender (para 1).

Procedural History

• State v. Granados, No. 33,972, mem.op. (N.M. Ct. App. May 7, 2015) (non-precedential): The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings in a separate case involving the Defendant, which could impact the sentence in the present case regarding the habitual offender enhancement (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Filed a “memorandum in conditional support of summary dismissal,” acknowledging the non-finality of the judgment and sentence but requested the dismissal to be “without prejudice” (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the judgment and sentence are final and appealable given the potential impact of ongoing proceedings in a separate case on the sentence enhancement for being a habitual offender (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final order, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings (para 4).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, Michael E. Vigil, and Jonathan B. Sutin, unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal due to the non-finality of the judgment and sentence. This decision was based on the recognition that the outcome of ongoing proceedings in a separate case involving the Defendant could affect the enhancement of his sentence for being a habitual offender. The district court's sua sponte order indicated that further proceedings were anticipated to resolve issues related to the habitual offender enhancement. The Court declined to dismiss the appeal "without prejudice" as requested by the Defendant, citing jurisdictional principles that preclude such conditional dismissals. However, the Court noted that the dismissal does not prevent the Defendant from filing another appeal once the finality concerns are resolved (paras 1-4).