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

• Lorie Estelle Campbell was charged with commercial burglary. The State appealed the district court's decision to dismiss the charge against Campbell. The appeal was stayed pending the decision in State v. Archuleta, which addressed a similar issue regarding the charge of commercial burglary.

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, Darren M. Kugler, District Judge: Dismissed the charge of commercial burglary against Lorie Estelle Campbell.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Objected to the proposed disposition of the Court of Appeals, which was to affirm the district court's dismissal of the commercial burglary charge against Campbell. The State requested to hold the appeal in abeyance or to be given an opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending appeals controlled by the Opinion in Archuleta.
• Defendant-Appellee (Campbell): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss the charge of commercial burglary against Lorie Estelle Campbell should be upheld, in light of the precedent set by State v. Archuleta.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision to dismiss the charge of commercial burglary against Lorie Estelle Campbell.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Cynthia A. Fry, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals decided to reverse the district court's dismissal of the commercial burglary charge against Campbell based on the precedent set by State v. Archuleta. Despite the State's objection to the proposed disposition, the Court found no material factual distinctions that would remove this case from the control of the Opinion in Archuleta. The Supreme Court had denied the State's request for a stay or other remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta, leading the Court of Appeals to apply the ruling from Archuleta to this case (paras 1-2).