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 a child (hereafter referred to as "Child") who was charged with the delinquent act of larceny. Child filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the delay between the preliminary inquiry and the filing of the delinquency petition exceeded the time limits set by law (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that the charge should be dismissed due to the delay exceeding the permissible time frame as outlined in NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-7(D) (2005) (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the delay between the preliminary inquiry and the filing of the delinquency petition exceeded the permissible time limit and, if so, whether this delay warranted the dismissal of the charge against the Child under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-7(D) (2005).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of Child's motion to dismiss the charge was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (with James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring): The Court proposed to affirm the district court's ruling on the basis that the Child failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay, as required by Section 32A-2-7(D). The Child chose not to file a memorandum in opposition to the Court's notice of proposed summary affirmance but instead relied on the arguments presented in his initial memorandum. The Court highlighted that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law and that failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of the proposed disposition. Consequently, for the reasons articulated in the second notice of proposed disposition, the Court affirmed the district court's decision (paras 1-2).