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-Respondent and John D. McDowell as the Defendant-Petitioner. The specific events leading to the case are not detailed in the provided text. The Supreme Court of New Mexico considered a petition for writ of certiorari related to McDowell's conviction under NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1.1 (2003).

Procedural History

• Original proceeding on certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA, with the writ of certiorari issued on September 28, 2018 (para 1).
• The case was held in abeyance pending the Court’s disposition in related cases, State v. Montaño, No. S-1-SC-37021, and State v. Martinez, No. S-1-SC-37098 (para 2).
• The Court of Appeals decision, now reversed by the Supreme Court of New Mexico, had previously adjudicated the matter before this appeal (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Respondent (State of New Mexico): The specific arguments made by the State of New Mexico are not detailed in the provided text (N/A).
• Defendant-Petitioner (John D. McDowell): The specific arguments made by John D. McDowell are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the issue of law presented in this case was already decided by the Court’s disposition in State v. Montaño, thereby affecting the conviction of the Defendant-Petitioner under NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1.1 (2003) (paras 3-4).

Disposition

• The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the matter is remanded to vacate Petitioner’s conviction under NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1.1 (2003) (para 6).

Reasons

• Per BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice; C. SHANNON BACON, Justice; DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice:
  The Court decided to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision based on the precedent set in State v. Montaño. The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) and (2) NMRA to dispose of the case by a non-precedential order rather than a formal opinion, indicating that the legal issue presented was already decided in Montaño (paras 3-5).
  NAKAMURA, Justice (dissenting):
  Justice Nakamura dissented, referencing her dissenting opinion in Montaño, which suggests disagreement with the majority's application or interpretation of the law as it pertains to the Defendant-Petitioner's case (para 8).