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 remanded to the metropolitan court for the imposition of the original sentence following a de novo trial in the district court. The Defendant raised several issues on appeal, including failure to arraign within thirty days of arrest, discovery issues, denial of a jury trial, limitations on admitting exhibits, and allegations against Deputy Wooten.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Briana H. Zamora, District Judge: Order remanding to the metropolitan court for imposition of the original sentence following a de novo trial.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]
• Appellant (Alexander Campbell): Argued that the metropolitan and district courts erred by not arraigning him within thirty days of arrest, mishandling various discovery issues, denying his request for a jury trial, limiting his ability to admit exhibits, and in relation to allegations against Deputy Wooten.

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court and district court failed to arraign the Defendant within thirty days of arrest.
• Whether there were errors in handling various discovery issues.
• Whether the denial of the Defendant's request for a jury trial was improper.
• Whether the limitation on the Defendant's ability to admit exhibits was unjust.
• Whether the allegations against Deputy Wooten were properly addressed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order remanding to the metropolitan court for imposition of the original sentence following a de novo trial.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The Court noted the Defendant's failure to provide authorities to support his conclusions on appeal, which is necessary to clearly point out error in fact or law. The repetition of earlier arguments without specifically pointing out errors of law and fact was deemed insufficient to fulfill the requirement to oppose the Court's proposed disposition. The Defendant's inability to develop clear legal arguments or provide authority to support his argument was insufficient to carry his burden on appeal, leading to the affirmation of the district court's order (paras 1-2).