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 as the Plaintiff-Appellant and Lorie Estelle Campbell as the Defendant-Appellee. The State appealed from the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of non-residential burglary against her. The basis for the charge was the Defendant's alleged violation of an order of no trespass by entering an open public shopping area with the intent to commit theft (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, Darren M. Kugler, District Judge: Granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of non-residential burglary.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Objected to the proposed disposition of affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the charge of non-residential burglary. Requested the appeal be held in abeyance or provided an opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on all pending appeals controlled by the opinion in State v. Archuleta (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Lorie Estelle Campbell): Successfully moved to dismiss the charge of non-residential burglary, arguing that the act did not constitute the type of harmful entry required for a violation of the burglary statute, aligning with the reasoning in State v. Archuleta [Not applicable or not found].

Legal Issues

• Whether violating an order of no trespass by entering an otherwise open public shopping area with the intent to commit a theft constitutes the type of harmful entry required for a violation of the burglary statute.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of non-residential burglary (para 2).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, Judge (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Roderick Kennedy, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's decision based on the precedent set by State v. Archuleta, which held that entering an open public shopping area with the intent to commit theft, despite violating a no trespass order, does not meet the criteria for harmful entry as required by the burglary statute. The State's objection to the proposed disposition was noted, but the State indicated it could not provide additional facts or legal arguments against the application of Archuleta. Given the Supreme Court's denial of a stay or other remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta, the Court of Appeals applied its reasoning to affirm the dismissal of the charge against the Defendant (paras 1-2).