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 charged with multiple offenses, including murder and tampering with evidence. After asserting his right to a speedy trial multiple times, the State filed for extensions to the trial date, citing reasons such as needing more time for pretrial discovery and interviews, and newly-discovered evidence. The State's final petition for extension was filed after the deadline, which the defendant opposed. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice under the six-month rule, after which the State appealed (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, February 17, 2010: The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice under the six-month rule.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the case is still "pending" and thus the decision in State v. Savedra, which withdrew the six-month rule, should apply to reverse the district court's dismissal under the six-month rule (para 6).
• Defendant-Appellee (Romero): Urged the Court not to apply Savedra to this case, arguing it would materially alter the legal duties of the parties after the fact and constitute a violation of due process and ex post facto laws (paras 6, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the six-month rule applies to the defendant's case, considering it was pending on appeal as of May 12, 2010 (para 7).
• Whether withdrawing the six-month rule for the defendant's case violates due process as an ex post facto law (para 8).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court's order of dismissal and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 16).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Justice Edward L. Chávez, held that the six-month rule does not apply to the defendant's case because it was pending on appeal as of May 12, 2010, following the precedent set in State v. Martinez. The Court rejected the defendant's argument that withdrawing the six-month rule would violate due process under the United States and New Mexico Constitutions, stating that procedural rules not affecting substantive matters do not constitute ex post facto laws. The Court further noted that the defendant retains the right to a speedy trial and may assert this right on remand. The decision was unanimous, with all justices concurring (paras 1, 7-15).