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 Defendant who did not appear at the scheduled arraignment, leading to the district court's amended judgment of default of conditions on bond against Daniel Goldberg, doing business as Goodfellas Bail Bonds (Surety). The district court required Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond due to the Defendant's non-appearance (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge, April 18, 2013: The district court issued an amended judgment of default of conditions on bond, requiring Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond for the Defendant's failure to appear at arraignment.

Parties' Submissions

• Surety-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by requiring the payment of $2,000 of a $3,000 bond when the Defendant did not appear at the scheduled arraignment (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Indicated that it will not file a response in opposition to the Surety's appeal (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in requiring Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond when the Defendant did not appear at the scheduled arraignment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order requiring Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond (para 2).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge (Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, and Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals decided to reverse the district court's order based on the clear language set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-2(F) (1993), which presumably provided grounds that did not support the district court's decision to require the Surety to pay part of the bond for the Defendant's non-appearance. The Surety's appeal was supported by a timely memorandum, and the State did not oppose the proposed disposition by the Court of Appeals (paras 1-2).