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-Respondent was convicted by a jury of first-degree child abuse and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment and two years parole. Subsequently, the district court issued an amended judgment, sentence, and commitment, finding that the Defendant-Respondent committed a serious violent offense (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals memorandum opinion in State v. Tafoya, A-1-CA-34599, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. July 23, 2019) (nonprecedential): Held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to correct Defendant-Respondent’s sentencing order under Rule 5-801(A) NMRA (2009) (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Appealed from the Court of Appeals memorandum opinion, arguing for the review of the district court's jurisdiction to amend the sentencing order (para 1).
• Defendant-Respondent (Lawrence Tafoya): Argued that the case is moot and no actual relief can be granted by the court (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to correct the Defendant-Respondent’s sentencing order under Rule 5-801(A) NMRA (2009) (para 5).
• Whether the case is moot and, if so, whether it falls under exceptions that would still allow the court to decide on the matter (paras 6-9).

Disposition

• The State’s petition for certiorari is quashed as moot (para 15).
• The Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion, A-1-CA-34599, shall not be cited as persuasive authority (para 16).

Reasons

• Justices Michael E. Vigil, C. Shannon Bacon, David K. Thomson, and Judge Melissa A. Kennelly, sitting by designation, determined that the case was moot as the Defendant-Respondent had already served his term of incarceration and parole, rendering the court unable to grant any relief. The court also found that the issue did not present a substantial public interest nor was it capable of repetition yet evading review, especially considering the amendment to Rule 5-801 which no longer allows for the correction of a sentence. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dispose of the case by a nonprecedential order (paras 7-14).