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 State of New Mexico appealing a district court order that sanctioned the Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office. The sanction required the D.A.'s Office to pay $889.20 in juror costs to the Second Judicial District Court Clerk due to the State's failure to comply with a plea deadline.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the district court erred in sanctioning the Second Judicial District Attorney's office with a monetary amount of $889.20, which were the jury costs as calculated by the jury division of the district court. The State maintained that costs cannot be assessed against it in criminal cases due to the absence of a statutory provision allowing for such costs (paras 3-4).
• Defendant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a monetary sanction against the Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office for its failure to comply with the plea deadline.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order sanctioning the Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office and ordering it to pay $889.20 in juror costs.

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Sutin, J., and Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals found that the State did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the monetary sanction. The State's argument that Defendant should have also been sanctioned was not persuasive. The Court distinguished the present case from State v. Rivera, noting that unlike Rivera, there was a scheduling order in place, the State failed to comply with this order, and pursuant to Local Rule 2-400.1(J)(4), the district court was required to sanction the State. The imposition of a monetary sanction was deemed a permissible sanction under the circumstances. The Court concluded that the State did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the district court in imposing the monetary sanction (paras 1-7).