october 21, 2015 • volume 54, no. 42 · 4 bar bulletin - october 21, 2015 - volume 54, no. 42....

Layers, by Barbara L. Chapman (see page 3) www.chapman-art.com

Inside This Issue

October 21, 2015 • Volume 54, No. 42

Table of Contents .................................................... 3

Board of Bar Commissioners: Seeking Access to Justice Commission Nominations ................... 4

Board of Editors: Four Open Positions ............... 4

Committee on Women and the Legal Profession: Mixer in Farmington............... 5

Senior Lawyers Division: Memorial Scholarship and Reception ................. 9

Board of Bar Commissioners: Election Notice and Nomination Petition ........ 11

Clerk’s Certificates ................................................ 16

Rules/Orders

Proposed Amendments to the Rules Governing Pretrial Release in New Mexico Courts ........................................ 18

From the New Mexico Court of Appeals

2015-NMCA-073, No. 33,090: State v. Holt ...................................................... 25

http://www.chapman-art.com

2 Bar Bulletin - October 21, 2015 - Volume 54, No. 42

OctoberSunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Legal Writing— From Fiction to Fact

4.0 G, 2.0 EPLive and Webcast

Family Law Institute—Removing Roadblocks: Dividing Retirement Benefits During Divorce10.0 G, 2.0 EPLive and Webcast

Craig Othmer Memorial Procurement Code Institute

2.5 G, 1.0 EPSanta Fe Live Only

2015 Land Use Law in New Mexico5.0 G, 1.0 EPLive and Webcast

2625 27 28

23-24

30 31

22

Video Replays

CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION

Jump into fall with CLE events coming up at the State Bar Center

Preliminary schedule. Visit www.nmbar.org for more information.

NovemberSunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

5 642

9 11 13 ADR Institute4.5 G, 1.5 EP13

1

8 10 12

Health Law Symposium

The State of Medicaid in New Mexico: Fraud/

Abuse, Contractual and Legislative Concerns


ADR Institute4.5 G, 1.5 EPLive and Webcast

Indian Law Section: The

Future of Cross Commissioning

2.5 G, 1.0 EP Live and Webcast

Representing Technology Start-ups6.5 G, 1.0 EPLive and Webcast

Video Replays

Video Replays

Teleseminars

available all month.

Visit nmbar.org for

more information.

15 17 18Kinship GuardianshipDetails coming soon!

2015 New Mexico Probate Institute


Kinship GuardianshipDetails coming soon!

19 The New Lawyer— Rethinking Legal Services

in the 21st Centuryfeaturing Mark E. Lassiter, Founder of the Lassiter Law Firm4.5 G, 1.5 EPLive and Webcast

CLE from home!Self-study on-demand courses available. Visit nmbar.org for more information.

On-Demand

22 2523 24 27 28Happy

Thanksgiving!

Video Replays

New programs

coming soon ...

Watch your email

for updates!

26

http://www.nmbar.org

Bar Bulletin - October 21, 2015 - Volume 54, No. 42 3

Notices ................................................................................................................................................................4Legal Education Calendar .............................................................................................................................7Writs of Certiorari .......................................................................................................................................... 13Court of Appeals Opinions List ................................................................................................................. 15Clerk’s Certificates ......................................................................................................................................... 16Recent Rule-Making Activity ..................................................................................................................... 17Rules/Orders

Proposed Amendments to the Rules Governing Pretrial Release in New Mexico Courts......................................................................................... 18

OpinionsFrom the New Mexico Court of Appeals

2015-NMCA-073, No. 33,090: State v. Holt ................................................................................. 25

Advertising ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

State Bar Workshops OctOber

22 Law-La-Palooza Legal Fair 3–6 p.m., Cesar Chavez Community Center, Albuquerque

23 Legal Fair 10 a.m.–1 p.m., Luna County District Court, Deming

23 Ask-A-Lawyer Legal Fair 11:30 a.m.–5 p.m., Eastern New Mexico University, Portales

27 Legal Resources for the Elderly Workshop 10–11:15 a.m., Presentation Noon–2 p.m., Clinics Alamo Senior Center, Alamogordo

28 Consumer Debt/Bankruptcy Workshop 6 p.m., State Bar Center, Albuquerque

28 Legal Resources for the Elderly Workshop 10–11:15 a.m., Presentation Noon–2 p.m., Clinics Munson Senior Center, Las Cruces

NOvember

4 Divorce Options Workshop 6 p.m., State Bar Center, Albuquerque

4 Civil Legal Fair 10 a.m.–1 p.m., Second Judicial District Court, Third Floor Conference Room, Albuquerque

MeetingsOctOber

21 Real Property, Trust and Estate Section BOD, Noon, State Bar Center

21 Law Practice Management Committee, Noon, State Bar Center

22 Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Section BOD, noon, teleconference

23 Immigration Law Section BOD, Noon, teleconference

27 Appellate Practice Section BOD, Noon, teleconference

27 Intellectual Property Law Section BOD, Noon, Lewis, Roca Rothgerber, Albuquerque

27 Senior Lawyers Division BOD, 4 p.m., State Bar Center

29 Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, Noon, State Bar Center

NOvember

3 Bankruptcy Law Section BOD, Noon, U.S. Bankrupcy Court

3 Health Law Section BOD, 7 a.m., teleconference

Table of Contents

Officers, Board of Bar Commissioners Mary Martha Chicoski, President J. Brent Moore, President-Elect Scotty A. Holloman, Vice President Dustin K. Hunter, Secretary-Treasurer Erika E. Anderson, Immediate Past President

Board of EditorsMaureen S. Moore, Chair Curtis HayesJamshid Askar Bruce HerrNicole L. Banks Andrew SefzikAlex Cotoia Mark StandridgeKristin J. Dalton Carolyn Wolf

State Bar Staff Executive Director Joe Conte Managing Editor D.D. Wolohan 505-797-6039 • [email protected] Communications Coordinator Evann Kleinschmidt 505-797-6087 • [email protected] Graphic Designer Julie Schwartz [email protected] Account Executive Marcia C. Ulibarri 505-797-6058 • [email protected] Digital Print Center Manager Brian Sanchez Assistant Michael Rizzo

©2015, State Bar of New Mexico. No part of this publica-tion may be reprinted or otherwise reproduced without the publisher’s written permission. The Bar Bulletin has the authority to edit letters and materials submitted for publication. Publishing and editorial decisions are based on the quality of writing, the timeliness of the article, and the potential interest to readers. Appearance of an article, editorial, feature, column, advertisement or photograph in the Bar Bulletin does not constitute an endorsement by the Bar Bulletin or the State Bar of New Mexico. The views expressed are those of the authors, who are solely responsible for the accuracy of their citations and quotations. State Bar members receive the Bar Bulletin as part of their annual dues. The Bar Bulletin is available at the subscription rate of $125 per year and is available online at www.nmbar.org.The Bar Bulletin (ISSN 1062-6611) is published weekly by the State Bar of New Mexico, 5121 Masthead NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109-4367. Periodicals postage paid at Albuquerque, NM. Postmaster: Send address changes to Bar Bulletin, PO Box 92860, Albuquerque, NM 87199-2860.

505-797-6000 • 800-876-6227 • Fax: 505-828-3765 E-mail: [email protected]. • www.nmbar.org

October 21, 2015, Vol. 54, No. 42Cover Artist: The inspiration for Barbara Chapman’s work is derived from the movement initiated by life’s changes and challenges. The use of acrylic paint, chalk and oil pastels allow for the flow of spirit to emerge and unfold. Volunteering with homeless youth reinforces her drive to express the beauty, grace and courage that can be found in each day.

mailto:[email protected]








NoticesProfessionalism TipcOurt News

Supreme CourtApplicants for Vacancy Eight applications were received in the Judicial Selection Office as of Oct. 9 for the pending judicial vacancy on the Supreme Court due to the retirement of Hon. Richard C. Bosson. The Appellate Nominating Commission was due to meet on Oct. 19 at the Supreme Court to evalu-ate the applicants for this position during a meeting open to the public. The names of the applicants in alphabetical order are: Gary L. Clingman, Paul W. Grace, Diana Martwick, Judith K. Nakamura, Frank Susman, Linda M. Vanzi, Michael E. Vigil and Samuel L. Winder. The names of those applicants submitted to Gov. Susana Martinez will be published at a later date.

Vacancy on the Civil Legal Services Commission The Supreme Court is seeking ap-plications from those interested in an appointment to serve on the New Mexico Civil Legal Services Commission. Ap-plicants must have experience with civil legal matters affecting low-income persons. See NMSA 1978, § 34-14-1(A) (2001). The Commission is responsible for soliciting proposals for disbursements from the civil legal services fund and for entering into contracts for expenditures from the civil legal services fund for the purpose of improving civil legal services for low income persons See § 34-14-1(D). Applicants should submit a résumé and letter of interest to Joey D. Moya, Chief Clerk, by mail to PO Box 848, Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848, by fax to 505-827-4837, or by email to [email protected]. The application deadline is Nov. 13.

Court of AppealsNotice of Retirement Court of Appeals Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil announces the retirement of Judge Cynthia A. Fry from the Court of Appeals, effective Dec. 31. A Judicial Nominating Commission meeting will be convened in Santa Fe in late January 2016 to interview applicants to replace Judge Fry. The person appointed by the governor to fill the posi-tion will have his/her office at the Santa Fe Court of Appeals location and will be required to run in the general election in November 2016. More information on the application process can be found on the Judicial Selection website, lawschool.unm.

With respect to parties, lawyers, jurors, and witnesses:

Within practical time limits, I will allow lawyers to present proper arguments and to make a complete and accurate record.

edu/judsel/index.php. Updates regarding the vacancy will be posted later this year.

Second Judicial District CourtHearing Room at Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center The Second Judicial District Court is providing the opportunity for public com-ment on the proposal to build a hearing room at Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center. If built, the hearing room will be used to conduct arraign-ments and probation violation hearings for persons in custody at MDC. Trials will not be conducted at MDC. Comments, limited to three pages, must be in writing. They must be postmarked or hand-delivered to the Second Judicial District Court by Oct. 23. Comments should be mailed or delivered to Chief Judge Nan Nash, Second Judicial District Court, 400 Lomas Blvd., NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

Bernalillo County Metropolitan CourtNotice of Court Closure The Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court will close on Oct. 23 for the Court’s annual Professional Development Confer-ence. Misdemeanor custody arraignments and felony first appearances will not be held that day. Court employees will par-ticipate in training workshops tailored to their specific job responsibilities and will hear from experts on working with people in crisis, mediation and workplace wellness. The conference is sponsored by the New Mexico Judicial Education Center at the University of New Mexico and paid for by fees collected by state courts.

Administrative Hearings OfficeUpdated Filing Procedures Effective Nov. 2, any file-stamped no-tices of appeal from an Implied Consent Act, Parental Responsibility Act or Motor Vehicle Code decision and order must be filed directly with the Administrative Hearings Office so that the record proper can be filed in the relevant district court. Notices should be directed to the Admin-istrative Hearings Office at PO Box 6400,

Santa Fe, NM 87502 or faxed to 505-827-9732. Any requests for audio recordings of a proceeding before the AHO must also be submitted in writing to the AHO at the address above.

state bar NewsAttorney Support Groups• Oct. 19, 7:30 a.m. First United Methodist Church, 4th

and Lead SW, Albuquerque (The group meets the third Monday of the month.)

• Nov. 2, 5:30 p.m. First United Methodist Church, 4th

and Lead SW, Albuquerque (The group meets the first Monday of the month.)

• Nov. 9, 5:30 p.m. UNM School of Law, 1117 Stanford NE,

Albuquerque, King Room in the Law Library. To increase access, teleconfer-ence participation is now available. Dial 1-866-640-4044 and enter code 7976003#.

For more information, contact Hilary Noskin, 505-449-7984 or Bill Stratvert, 505-242-6845.

Board of Bar CommissionersSeeking Nominees for Access to Justice Commission The Board of Bar Commissioners will make one appointment to the New Mexico Access to Justice Commission for a three-year term. Anyone who wants to serve on the commission should send a letter of interest and brief résumé by Nov. 30 to Executive Director Joe Conte, State Bar of New Mexico, PO Box 92860, Albuquerque, NM 87199-2860; fax to 828-3765; or email to [email protected].

Board of EditorsFour Open Positions The Board of Editors has four open po-sitions beginning Jan. 1, 2016. The Board of Editors meets at least four times a year and by email, reviewing articles submitted to the weekly Bar Bulletin and the quarterly New Mexico Lawyer. This volunteer board reviews submissions for suitability, edits for legal content and works with authors as needed to develop the topics or address



www.lawschool.unm.edu/judsel/index.php

www.lawschool.unm.edu/judsel/index.php


other concerns. Members of the Board of Editors should preferable have some expe-rience in journalism or legal publications. Members outside of Albuquerque and a non-lawyer member are especially needed. Those interested in being considered for a two-year term should send a letter of inter-est and résumé to Managing Editor D.D. Wolohan at [email protected]. More information about the Board of Editors can be found in the Sept. 30 Bar Bulletin (Vol. 54, No. 39).

Committee on Women and the Legal ProfessionMixer in Farmington Join the Farmington legal community for a mixer from 6 to 9 p.m., Oct. 23, at No Worries Sports Bar & Grill, 1300 W. Navajo, Farmington. Appetizers and a cash bar will be available. The mixer is sponsored by the Committee on Women and the Legal Profession and the New Mexico Women’s Bar Association. For more information or lodging questions, contact Kristin Harrington in Farmington at [email protected] or DeAnza Sapien in Albuquerque at [email protected].

Employment and Labor Law SectionMixer in Roswell The Employment and Labor Law Sec-tion is hosting a mixer from 4:30–6 p.m. on Nov. 12 at The Liberty, 312 N. Virginia, in Roswell. Non-section members are welcome.

Indian Law SectionSave the Date! Mixer in Santa Fe Nov. 19 The Indian Law Section will host its fall mixer at Georgia’s in Santa Fe, 225 Johnson St. next to the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, 5-7 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 19. Appetizers are included. Please R.S.V.P. to Heather Kleinschmidt, [email protected] by Nov. 18.

Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law SectionNominations Open for Lawyer of the Year Award The Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law Section will recognize an NREEL Lawyer of the Year during its annual meeting, which will be held in

New Mexico Lawyers and Judges

Assistance Program

Help and support are only a phone call away. 24-Hour Helpline

Attorneys/Law Students505-228-1948 • 800-860-4914

Judges888-502-1289

www.nmbar.org > for Members > Lawyers/Judges Assistance

conjunction with the section’s CLE on Dec. 18. The award will recognize an at-torney who, within his or her practice and location, is the model of a New Mexico natural resources, energy or environ-mental lawyer. More detailed criteria and nomination instructions are available at www.nmbar.org > About Us > Sections > NREEL. Nominations are due by Oct. 30 to D.D. Wolohan, [email protected].

uNmLaw LibraryHours Through Dec. 1Building & Circulation Monday–Thursday 8 a.m.–8 p.m. Friday 8 a.m.–6 p.m. Saturday 10 a.m.–6 p.m. Sunday Noon–8 p.m.Reference Monday–Friday 9 a.m.–6 p.m. Saturday–Sunday ClosedClosure Thanksgiving holiday: Nov. 26–27

Women’s Law CaucusJustice Mary Walters 2016 Honoree Nominations Each year, the Women’s Law Caucus at the UNM School of Law chooses an outstanding woman in the New Mexico legal community to honor in the name of former Justice Mary Walters, who was the first woman appointed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The WLC is currently soliciting nominations for the 2016 recipi-ent of the award. Submit nominations to Dana Beyal at [email protected] by Oct. 31. For each nomination, include the following information: • Nominee’s name, firm/organization/

title, why she should receive the award• If chosen to receive the award, would

the nominator be willing to introduce the nominee at the award reception?

• Nominator’s name, phone and email

Other barsAlbuquerque Lawyers Club‘400 Years of Franciscan Roman Catholicism in New Mexico’ The Albuquerque Lawyers Club invites members of the legal community to its next lunch meeting at noon, Nov. 4, at Sea-son’s Rotisserie and Grill in Albuquerque. Father Jack Clark Robinson, O.F.M., will present “400 Years of Franciscan Roman Catholicism in New Mexico before Pope

Bridge the gap Mentorship prograM

This mandatory program approved by the N.M. Supreme Court offers new lawyers

a highly experienced attorney member to teach real-world aspects of practice. Both earn a full year of CLE credits.

For more information, call 505-797-6003.

Francis.” The luncheon is free to members and $30 for non-members. For more information, contact Yasmin Dennig, [email protected].

New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers AssociationAnnual DWI Defense CLE The New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association presents a cutting-edge CLE on DWI defense on Oct. 30 in Albuquerque. The course is approved for 6.0 G and 0.5 EP CLE credits. Special guests include Janine Arvizu, laboratory quality auditor, and Dr. Linda LaGrange of New Mexico Highlands University, who will speak on topics such as using an expert to challenge SFSTs, DWI investiga-tions for alcohol and drugs and a critical look at the process used in blood testing. Registration fills quickly, so register today at www.nmcdla.org.









http://www.nmcdla.org



New Mexico Hispanic Bar AssociationLas Cruces CLE and Meet-and-Greet Event The New Mexico Hispanic Bar Associa-tion presents “Cross-Border Legal Issues: Custody Issues, Agricultural Guest Worker Program, Plea Agreements & Immigration Consequences” (1.0 G). The seminar will be at 4 p.m., Oct. 29, at the Hotel Encanto de Las Cruces, 705 S. Telshor Blvd, Las Cruces. Following the CLE, join NMHBA for a meet-and-greet event from 5–7 p.m., co-hosted by the UNM School of Law with special guest Dean Sergio Pareja. For more information or to register, visit www.nmhba.net.

New Mexico Women’s Bar Association Openings on Board of Directors Elections for two-year terms, begin-ning January 2016, for the Women’s Bar Association will be held in November. The Board invites interested members of the NMWBA to send a short letter of interest and a résumé to Secretary Barbara Koenig at [email protected] by Nov. 4. Board members are expected to attend an overnight retreat (Jan. 23–24, 2016), bimonthly meetings (in person or by phone), to actively participate on one or more committees and to support the events sponsored by NMWBA. The New Mexico Women’s Bar does not dis-criminate on the basis of sex or gender and encourages all licensed attorneys to become members and apply to be on the Board. For more information about NMWBA or to become a member, visit www.nmbar.org > for Members > Bars and Legal Groups > Women’s Bar.

Other NewsChristian Legal Aid New Volunteer Training Seminar Christian Legal Aid of New Mexico invites new members to join them as they work together to secure justice for the poor and uphold the cause of the needy. Christian Legal Aid will be hosting a New Volunteer Training Seminar from 11 a.m.–5 p.m., Oct. 23, at the State Bar Center in Albuquerque. The seminar

includes free lunch, free CLE credits and training on how to provide legal aid. For more information or to register, contact Jim Roach at 505-243-4419 or Jen Meisner at 505-610-8800 or [email protected].

Neighborhood Law Center CLE Conference in Santa Fe The Santa Fe Neighborhood Law Cen-ter presents the 8th annual Neighborhood Law CLE Conference, “Law and Policy for Neighborhoods” (10.0 G, 2.0 EP), Dec. 3–4, at the Santa Fe Convention Center. The program features Supreme Court Justice Charles W. Daniels and Court of Appeals Judge Linda M. Vanzi as mid-day speakers. Early registrants (before Nov. 27) will receive a reduced fee of $350 (standard registration fee: $380). For more informa-tion, schedule and registration, visit www.sfnlc.com.

New Mexico Lawyers for the ArtsVolunteers Needed for Clinic for Artists and Creative Professionals New Mexico Lawyers for the Arts and WESST seek attorneys to volunteer for New Mexico Lawyers for the Arts Pro Bono Legal Clinic from 10 a.m.–1 p.m., Nov. 7, at the Santa Fe Business Incubator. Breakfast will be provided. Clients will be creative professionals, artists or creative businesses who are WESST clients. Volun-teer attorneys are needed in the following areas: contracts, business law, employment matters, tax law, estate planning and intel-lectual property law. For more information and to participate, contact Talia Kosh at [email protected].

Senior Citizens’ Law OfficeAlbuquerque Community Foundation Endowment The Senior Citizens’ Law Office has es-tablished an endowment at the Albuquer-que Community Foundation and grate-fully accepts donations to its endowment through the Foundation. SCLO has been championing the rights of New Mexico’s elder population since 1983 by provid-ing free, civil legal services to Bernalillo County seniors. By the end of 2015, SCLO

will have served 3,200 individual clients in Central New Mexico. SCLO’s individual and systemwide advocacy has positively affected many thousands of seniors state-wide. For more information or to schedule a meeting with SCLO, contact Executive Director Ellen Leitzer at 505-265-2300 or [email protected].

Workers’ Compensation AdministrationDestruction of Exhibits and Depositions In accordance with NMAC 11.4.4.9 (Q)-Forms, Filing and Hearing Pro-cedures: Return of Records—the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Admin-istration will be destroying all exhibits and depositions filed in causes closed in 2009, excluding causes on appeal. The exhibits and depositions are stored at 2410 Centre Ave SE, Albuquerque. They can be picked up until Nov. 21. For more information, contact WCA at 505-841-6028 or 1-800-255-7965 and ask for Heather Jordan, clerk of the court.

Notice of Public Hearing The New Mexico Workers’ Com-pensation Administration will conduct a public hearing on the changes to the New Mexico Health Care Provider Fee Schedule at 1:30 p.m., Oct. 22, at the WCA, 2410 Centre Ave SE, Albuquerque. Written comments on the rule changes will be accepted until Oct. 30. Copy of the proposed changes are available at www.workerscomp.state.nm.us. Written and verbal comments will be taken into consideration. Comments should be sub-mitted to the WCA Economic Research Bureau, PO Box 27198, Albuquerque, NM 87125-7198.

To be included in the Nov. 18 issue, all notices and editorial content must be submitted by Friday, Nov. 6.

Submit content to [email protected].

Accelerated Bar Bulletin Holiday Deadlines

http://www.nmhba.net

http://www.nmhba.net



http://www.sfnlc.com




http://www.workerscomp.state.nm.us



Legal EducationOctober21–22 Business Planning with S Corps,

Parts 1 and 2 2.0 G National Teleseminar Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

22 Legal Writing—From Fiction to Fact

4.0 G, 2.0 EP Live Seminar and Webcast Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

23 Ethics and the Attorney Client Privilege

1.0 EP National Teleseminar Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

23–24 Family Law Institute—Removing Roadblocks: Dividing Retirement Benefits During Divorce


27 Internet Investigative/Legal Research on a Budget and Legal Tech Tips (2014)

6.0 G Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

27 2015 Ethicspalooza: Conflicts of Interest

1.0 EP Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

27 2015 Ethicspalooza: Proper Trust Accounting


27 2015 Ethicspalooza: The Ethics of Social Media Use


27 2015 Ethicspalooza: Civility and Professionalism


27 Offers-in-Compromise: Settling Tax Liability for Individuals and Business Owners

1.0 G National Teleseminar Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020

29 Legal Issues on Commercial Leases, LOIs and TIs

3.7 G Albuquerque Commercial Association of Realtors

New Mexico 505-503-7807 http://www.carnm.com/

30 Craig Othmer Memorial Procurement Code Institute

2.5 G, 1.0 EP Santa Fe Center for Legal Education of

NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

30 2015 Land Use Law in New Mexico 5.0 G, 1.0 EP Live Seminar and Webcast Center for Legal Education of

NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

30 Annual DWI Defense CLE 6.5 G, 0.5 EP Albuquerque New Mexico Criminal Defense

Lawyers Association 505-992-0050 www.nmcdla.org

November

3 Small Business Legal Workshop (2014)


3 2015 Ethicspalooza: Ethically Managing Your Practice


3 2015 Ethicspalooza: Proper Trust Accounting


3 2015 Spring Elder Law Institute 2.6 G Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

3 Indemnification & Hold Harmless Agreements in Business & Real Estate

1.0 G National Teleseminar Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org










http://www.carnm.com/



http://www.nmcdla.org







Legal Education www.nmbar.org

4 2015 Health Law Symposium—The State of Medicaid in New Mexico: Fraud/Abuse, Contractual and Legislative Concerns


4 Estate & Income Tax Planning Issues in Divorce


5 The Future of Cross Commissioning: What Every Tribal, State and County Lawyer Should Consider Post Loya v. Gutierrez


5 2015 Religion in the Workplace: Discrimination & Accommodation Update


6 Representing Technology Start-ups in New Mexico: Navigating the Intellectual Property and Business Law Challenges


6 Ethics & Tribunals: Communicating With the Courts & Government Agencies

1.0 EP National Teleseminar Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

10 Internet Investigative/Legal Research on a Budget and Legal Tech Tips (2015)


10 More Reasons to Be Skeptical of Expert Witnesses

5.0 G, 1.5 EP Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

10 Land Use Law in New Mexico 5.0 G,1.0 EP Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

10–11 Advanced Planning for Like-Kind Exchanges of Real Estate, Parts 1–2


12 Legal Services in the 21st Century: Preparing for the Bumpy Road Ahead

5.5 G 1.5 EP Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

12 26th Annual Appellate Practice Institute

5.0 G, 2.0 EP Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

12 2015 Tax Symposium 7.0 G Video Replay Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

12 2015 Ethicspalooza: The Ethics of Social Media Use


12 2015 Ethicspalooza: Civility and Professionalism


12 Settlement Agreements in Estate & Probate Disputes


13 ADR Annual Institute 4.5 G, 2.5 EP Live Seminar and Webcast Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

17 2015 New Mexico Probate Institute 6.2 G, 1.0 EP Live Seminar and Webcast Center for Legal Education of NMSBF 505-797-6020 www.nmbar.org

17 Role of Trust Protectors & Trust Advisers in Estate Planning


18 Choice Entity for Nonprofits & Obtaining Tax Exempt Status


19 The New Lawyer—Rethinking Legal Services in the 21st Century

























Two $2,500 scholarships will be awarded to UNM School of Law third-year students, in memory of attorneys who have died

in the past 12 months. Families of the deceased attorneys will be recognized. The Senior Lawyers Division invites all State Bar

members to attend. UNM School of Law Deans, faculty, staff and students are encouraged to save the date.

R.S.V.P. to Heather Kleinschmidt, [email protected].

Second Annual Attorney Memorial

Scholarship Presentation and Reception

Thursday, Nov. 19 • 5-7 p.m.State Bar Center

SENIOR LAWYERS DIVISION



Alan C. Torgerson

ARAG

Atkinson & Kelsey, P.A.

The Bar Plan

Burt & Company CPAs, LLC

Center for Legal Education

CliftonLarsonAllen

Dixon, Scholl & Bailey, P.A.

DYGarcia Medical Legal Resource Consulting, LLC

Glasheen, Valles & Inderman, LLP

Hinkle Shanor LLP

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

Liberty Mutual Insurance

LightHouse Business Information Solutions, LLC

Little Gilman-Tepper & Batley

Montgomery & Andrews Law Firm

New Mexico Board of Legal Specialization

Professional Medical Evaluation

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.

State Bar of New Mexico Paralegal Division

U.S. Eagle Federal Credit Union

Walther Family Law PC

Thank you to all of our sponsors that helped make this a successful event!

GAV

EL 1

$

5,00

0

GAV

EL 2

$

2,50

0

GAV

EL 3

$

1,00

0

GAV

EL 4

$

500

GAV

EL 5

$

200/

$100

/$50

ARAG

State Bar of New Mexico Paralegal Division

The Bar Plan

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.

Dixon, Scholl & Bailey, P.A.

Montgomery & Andrews Law Firm

Burt & Company CPAs, LLC

CliftonLarsonAllen

DYGarcia Medical Legal Resource Consulting, LLC

Glasheen, Valles & Inderman, LLP

Hinkle Shanor LLP

Liberty Mutual Insurance

LightHouse Business Information Solutions, LLC

Maddox, Holloman & Moran, P.C.

Martha Chicoski and Jason Brock

Butt Thornton & Baehr PC

Cruz Law Office, LLC

Kraft & Hunter, LLP

The Law Offices of Erika E. Anderson

Law Offices of Lynda Latta, LLC

New Mexico Black Lawyers Association

Pool Law Firm, P.C.

SaucedoChavez, P.C.

Exhibitors ARAG

The Bar Plan

Bean & Associates, Inc.

Cyber Spot

The Edward Group

Equal Access to Justice

Fastcase

FindLaw

LawPay

LogRhythm

McHard Accounting Consulting LLC

Unmanned Experts

U.S. Eagle Federal Credit Union

Volunteer Attorney Program

Annual Meeting

Program Guide Advertisers

2015 Annual Meeting–

Bench and Bar Conference


Notice is hereby given that the 2015 election of seven commissioners for the State Bar of New Mexico will close at noon, Dec. 1. Nominations to the office of bar commissioner shall be by the written petition of any 10 or more members of the State Bar who are in good standing and whose principal place of practice is in the respective district. Members of the State Bar may nominate and sign for more than one candidate. (See the nomination petition on the next page.)

The following terms will expire Dec. 31, and need to be filled in the upcoming election. All of the positions are three-year terms, except as noted, and run from Jan. 1, 2016–Dec. 31, 2018.

Send nomination petitions to: Executive Director Joe Conte

State Bar of New Mexico PO Box 92860

Albuquerque, NM [email protected]

Petitions must be received by 5 p.m., Oct. 23

Direct inquiries to 505-797-6099 or [email protected].

Board of Bar Commissioners eleCtion notiCe 2015

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 24-101, the Board of Bar Commissioners is the elected governing board of the State Bar of New Mexico. Candidates must consider that voting members of the Board of Bar Commissioners are required to do the following:

Duties and Requirements for Board of Bar Commissioner Members:• Attend all Board meetings (up to six per year), including the Annual Meeting of the State Bar.• Represent the State Bar at local bar-related meetings and events.• Communicate regularly with constituents regarding State Bar activities.• Promote the programs and activities of the State Bar.• Participate on Board and Supreme Court committees.• Evaluate the State Bar’s programs and operations on a regular basis.• Ensure financial accountability for the organization.• Support and participate in State Bar referral programs.• Establish and enforce bylaws and policies.

First Bar Commissioner DistrictBernalillo CountyFour positions currently held by: Erika Anderson** Danny W. Jarrett (one-year term)* George C. Kraehe* Raynard Struck

*Not seeking re-election**Ineligible to seek re-election

Second Bar Commissioner DistrictCibola, McKinley, San Juan and Valencia countiesOne position currently held by:Joseph F. Sawyer

Third Bar Commissioner DistrictLos Alamos, Rio Arriba, Sandoval and Santa Fe countiesOne position currently held by: The Hon. James A. Hall (ret.)*

Fifth Bar Commissioner DistrictCurry, DeBaca, Quay and Roosevelt countiesOne position currently held by: Wesley O. Pool




We, the undersigned, members in good standing of the State Bar of New Mexico, nominate ________________________________________________, whose principal place of practice is in the _____________________Bar Commissioner District, State of New Mexico, for the position of commissioner of the State Bar of New Mexico representing the ______________________Bar Commissioner District.

Submitted______________, 2015

(1) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature

____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Type or Print Name Address

(2) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(3) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(4) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(5) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(6) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(7) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(8) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(9) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


(10) ____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Signature


NomiNatioN PetitioN for Board of Bar CommissioNers


Joey D. Moya, Chief Clerk New Mexico Supreme Court PO Box 848 • Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848 • (505) 827-4860

Writs of CertiorariAs Updated by the Clerk of the New Mexico Supreme Court

Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Filed and Pending:

Date Petition FiledNo. 35,550 State v. Ben COA 33,921 10/07/15No. 35,546 State v. Lefthand COA 33,396 10/05/15No. 35,545 State v. Lemanski COA 33,846 10/05/15No. 35,544 State v. Trujeque COA 34,519 10/05/15No. 35,542 City of Roswell v. Marin COA 34,286 10/02/15No. 35,540 Fausnaught v. State 12-501 10/02/15No. 35,539 State v. Herrera COA 33,255 10/02/15No. 35,537 State v, Reyes COA 34,700 10/02/15No. 35,538 State v. Gallegos COA 34,689 10/02/15No. 35,535 State v. Herrera COA 33,078/33,255 09/29/15No. 35,532 Woody Investments v.

Sovereign Eagle COA 32,830 09/29/15No. 35,526 State v. Mitchell COA 34,573 09/24/15No. 35,525 State v. Ashley COA 32,974 09/23/15No. 35,523 McCoy v. Horton 12-501 09/23/15No. 35,522 Denham v. State 12-501 09/21/15No. 35,520 Deutsche Bank v. Huerta COA 34,337 09/21/15No. 35,519 State v. York COA 33,462 09/21/15No. 35,518 State v. Yanke COA 34,474 09/21/15No. 35,517 State v. Lopez COA 34,166 09/18/15No. 35,515 Saenz v.

Ranack Constructors COA 32,373 09/17/15No. 35,513 State v. Wyatt B. COA 33,297 09/14/15No. 35,509 Bank of New York v.

Borrego COA 33,988 09/08/15No. 35,505 Wild Horse Observers v.

N.M. Livestock Board COA 34,097 09/02/15No. 35,504 Wild Horse Observers v.

N.M. Livestock Board COA 34,097 09/02/15No. 35,506 Alonso v. Hatch 12-501 08/31/15No. 35,495 Stengel v. Roark 12-501 08/21/15No. 35,480 Ramirez v. Hatch 12-501 08/20/15No. 35,479 Johnson v. Hatch 12-501 08/17/15No. 35,474 State v. Ross COA 33,966 08/17/15No. 35,422 State v. Johnson 12-501 08/10/15No. 35,466 Garcia v. Wrigley 12-501 08/06/15No. 35,454 Alley v. State 12-501 07/29/15No. 35,440 Gonzales v. Franco 12-501 07/22/15No. 35,422 State v. Johnson 12-501 07/17/15No. 35,416 State v. Heredia COA 32,937 07/15/15No. 35,415 State v. McClain 12-501 07/15/15No. 35,411 Tayler v. State 12-501 07/10/15No. 35,399 Lopez v. State 12-501 07/09/15No. 35,374 Loughborough v. Garcia 12-501 06/23/15No. 35,375 Martinez v. State 12-501 06/22/15No. 35,372 Martinez v. State 12-501 06/22/15No. 35,370 Chavez v. Hatch 12-501 06/15/15No. 35,369 Serna v. State 12-501 06/15/15No. 35,368 Griego v. Horton 12-501 06/15/15No. 35,353 Collins v. Garrett COA 34,368 06/12/15No. 35,335 Chavez v. Hatch 12-501 06/03/15No. 35,341 Martin v. State 12-501 05/28/15

No. 35,371 Pierce v. Nance 12-501 05/22/15No. 35,271 Cunningham v. State 12-501 05/06/15No. 35,269 Peterson v. Ortiz 12-501 04/29/15No. 35,266 Guy v.

N.M. Dept. of Corrections 12-501 04/30/15No. 35,261 Trujillo v. Hickson 12-501 04/23/15No. 35,260 Duran v. Frawner 12-501 04/22/15No. 35,262 Sena v. Board of Finance 12-501 04/20/15No. 35,217 Hernandez v. Horton 12-501 04/03/15No. 35,159 Jacobs v. Nance 12-501 03/12/15No. 35,106 Salomon v. Franco 12-501 02/04/15No. 35,097 Marrah v. Swisstack 12-501 01/26/15No. 35,099 Keller v. Horton 12-501 12/11/14No. 35,068 Jessen v. Franco 12-501 11/25/14No. 34,937 Pittman v.

N.M. Corrections Dept. 12-501 10/20/14No. 34,932 Gonzales v. Sanchez 12-501 10/16/14No. 34,881 Paz v. Horton 12-501 10/08/14No. 34,907 Cantone v. Franco 12-501 09/11/14No. 34,680 Wing v. Janecka 12-501 07/14/14No. 34,777 State v. Dorais COA 32,235 07/02/14No. 34,790 Venie v. Velasquz COA 33,427 06/27/14No. 34,775 State v. Merhege COA 32,461 06/19/14No. 34,706 Camacho v. Sanchez 12-501 05/13/14No. 34,563 Benavidez v. State 12-501 02/25/14No. 34,303 Gutierrez v. State 12-501 07/30/13No. 34,067 Gutierrez v. Williams 12-501 03/14/13No. 33,868 Burdex v. Bravo 12-501 11/28/12No. 33,819 Chavez v. State 12-501 10/29/12No. 33,867 Roche v. Janecka 12-501 09/28/12No. 33,539 Contreras v. State 12-501 07/12/12No. 33,630 Utley v. State 12-501 06/07/12

Certiorari Granted but Not Yet Submitted to the Court:

(Parties preparing briefs) Date Writ IssuedNo. 33,725 State v. Pasillas COA 31,513 09/14/12No. 33,877 State v. Alvarez COA 31,987 12/06/12No. 33,930 State v. Rodriguez COA 30,938 01/18/13No. 34,363 Pielhau v. State Farm COA 31,899 11/15/13No. 34,274 State v. Nolen 12-501 11/20/13No. 34,443 Aragon v. State 12-501 02/14/14No. 34,522 Hobson v. Hatch 12-501 03/28/14No. 34,582 State v. Sanchez COA 32,862 04/11/14No. 34,694 State v. Salazar COA 33,232 06/06/14No. 34,669 Hart v. Otero County Prison 12-501 06/06/14No. 34,650 Scott v. Morales COA 32,475 06/06/14No. 34,784 Silva v. Lovelace Health

Systems, Inc. COA 31,723 08/01/14No. 34,728 Martinez v. Bravo 12-501 10/10/14No. 34,812 Ruiz v. Stewart 12-501 10/10/14No. 34,830 State v. Mier COA 33,493 10/24/14No. 34,929 Freeman v. Love COA 32,542 12/19/14No. 35,063 State v. Carroll COA 32,909 01/26/15No. 35,016 State v. Baca COA 33,626 01/26/15

Effective October 2, 2015


Writs of CertiorariNo. 35,130 Progressive Ins. v. Vigil COA 32,171 03/23/15No. 35,101 Dalton v. Santander COA 33,136 03/23/15No. 35,148 El Castillo Retirement Residences v.

Martinez COA 31,701 04/03/15No. 35,198 Noice v. BNSF COA 31,935 05/11/15No. 35,183 State v. Tapia COA 32,934 05/11/15No. 35,145 State v. Benally COA 31,972 05/11/15No. 35,121 State v. Chakerian COA 32,872 05/11/15No. 35,116 State v. Martinez COA 32,516 05/11/15No. 34,949 State v. Chacon COA 33,748 05/11/15No. 35,298 State v. Holt COA 33,090 06/19/15No. 35,297 Montano v. Frezza COA 32,403 06/19/15No. 35,296 State v. Tsosie COA 34,351 06/19/15No. 35,286 Flores v. Herrera COA 32,693/33,413 06/19/15No. 35,255 State v. Tufts COA 33,419 06/19/15No. 35,249 Kipnis v. Jusbasche COA 33,821 06/19/15No. 35,248 AFSCME Council 18 v. Bernalillo

County Comm. COA 33,706 06/19/15No. 35,214 Montano v. Frezza COA 32,403 06/19/15No. 35,213 Hilgendorf v. Chen COA 33056 06/19/15No. 35,279 Gila Resource v. N.M. Water Quality Control

Comm. COA 33,238/33,237/33,245 07/13/15No. 35,289 NMAG v. N.M. Water Quality Control

Comm. COA 33,238/33,237/33,245 07/13/15No. 35,290 Olson v. N.M. Water Quality Control

Comm. COA 33,238/33,237/33,245 07/13/15No. 35,349 Phillips v. N.M. Taxation and

Revenue Dept. COA 33,586 07/17/15No. 35,302 Cahn v. Berryman COA 33,087 07/17/15No. 35,318 State v. Dunn COA 34,273 08/07/15No. 35,386 State v. Cordova COA 32,820 08/07/15No. 35,278 Smith v. Frawner 12-501 08/26/15No. 35,398 Armenta v.

A.S. Homer, Inc. COA 33,813 08/26/15No. 35,427 State v.

Mercer-Smith COA 31,941/28,294 08/26/15No. 35,446 State Engineer v.

Diamond K Bar Ranch COA 34,103 08/26/15No. 35,451 State v. Garcia COA 33,249 08/26/15No. 35,438 Rodriguez v.

Brand West Dairy COA 33,104/33,675 08/31/15No. 35,426 Rodriguez v.

Brand West Dairy COA 33,675/33,104 08/31/15No. 35,499 Romero v.

Ladlow Transit Services COA 33,032 09/25/15No. 35,456 Haynes v. Presbyterian

Healthcare Services COA 34,489 09/25/15No. 35,437 State v. Tafoya COA 34,218 09/25/15No. 35,395 State v. Bailey COA 32,521 09/25/15

Certiorari Granted and Submitted to the Court:

(Submission Date = date of oralargument or briefs-only submission) Submission DateNo. 33,969 Safeway, Inc. v.

Rooter 2000 Plumbing COA 30,196 08/28/13No. 33,898 Bargman v. Skilled Healthcare

Group, Inc. COA 31,088 09/11/13No. 33,884 Acosta v. Shell Western Exploration

and Production, Inc. COA 29,502 10/28/13No. 34,146 Madrid v.

Brinker Restaurant COA 31,244 12/09/13No. 34,093 Cordova v. Cline COA 30,546 01/15/14No. 34,287 Hamaatsa v.

Pueblo of San Felipe COA 31,297 03/26/14No. 34,546 N.M. Dept. Workforce Solutions v.

Garduno COA 32,026 08/13/14No. 34,613 Ramirez v. State COA 31,820 12/17/14No. 34,548 State v. Davis COA 28,219 01/14/15No. 34,549 State v. Nichols COA 30,783 02/25/15No. 34,798 State v. Maestas COA 31,666 03/25/15No. 34,637 State v. Serros COA 31,975 04/13/15No. 34,630 State v. Ochoa COA 31,243 04/13/15No. 34,789 Tran v. Bennett COA 32,677 04/13/15No. 34,995 State v. Deangelo M. COA 31,413 05/11/15 No. 34,668 State v. Vigil COA 32,166 08/10/15No. 34,974 Moses v. Skandera COA 33,002 08/12/15No. 34,997 T.H. McElvain Oil & Gas v.

Benson COA 32,666 08/24/15No. 34,993 T.H. McElvain Oil & Gas v.

Benson COA 32,666 08/24/15No. 34,726 Deutsche Bank v.

Johnston COA 31,503 08/24/15No. 34,826 State v. Trammel COA 31,097 08/26/15No. 34,866 State v. Yazzie COA 32,476 08/26/15No. 35,049 State v. Surratt COA 32,881 10/13/15No. 35,035 State v. Stephenson COA 31,273 10/15/15No. 35,478 Morris v. Brandenburg COA 33,630 10/26/15No. 34,946 State v. Kuykendall COA 32,612 11/12/15No. 34,945 State v. Kuykendall COA 32,612 11/12/15

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied:

Date Order FiledNone


OpinionsAs Updated by the Clerk of the New Mexico Court of Appeals

Mark Reynolds, Chief Clerk New Mexico Court of Appeals PO Box 2008 • Santa Fe, NM 87504-2008 • 505-827-4925

Effective October 9, 2015Published Opinions

No. 32838 5th Jud Dist Chaves CR-12-380, STATE v G HOBBS (affirm) 10/5/2015No. 33921 11th Jud Dist McKinley LR-13-26, STATE v F BEN (affirm) 10/5/2015No. 32663 2nd Jud Dist Bernalillo CR-10-5929, STATE v J ANDERSON (reverse and remand) 10/7/2015

Unublished Opinions

No. 34682 11th Jud Dist San Juan CR-13-1058, STATE v J SHELBY (affirm) 10/5/2015No. 34412 1st Jud Dist Santa Fe CV-13-1364, G SCHWARTZ v NM MEDICAL BOARD (affirm) 10/6/2015No. 34577 2nd Jud Dist Bernalillo CR-06-1838,CR-06-1527,CR-08-2294 STATE v R PARRA (affirm) 10/6/2015No. 34393 2nd Jud Dist Bernalillo CV-13-8937, W GREEN v CASA BELLA 10/6/2015 (affirm in part reverse in part and remand)No. 34531 2nd Jud Dist Bernalillo DV-14-2151, DM-13-4428, S SOLLIEN v J SOLLIEN (affirm) 10/6/2015No. 33222 13th Jud Dist Sandoval DM-09-569, E ESPARZA v F ESPARZA (affirm) 10/7/2015No. 33905 5th Jud Dist Lea JQ-12-24, CYFD v MARY S (reverse and remand) 10/7/2015

Slip Opinions for Published Opinions may be read on the Court’s website:http://coa.nmcourts.gov/documents/index.htm

http://coa.nmcourts.gov/documents/index.htm

Clerk’s CertificatesFrom the Clerk of the New Mexico Supreme CourtJoey D. Moya, Chief Clerk New Mexico Supreme Court

PO Box 848 • Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848 • (505) 827-4860


Dated Oct. 1, 2015

Clerk’s Certificate of Address and/or

Telephone Changes

Allison H. Block-ChavezAldridge, Hammar & Wexler, PA1212 Pennsylvania Street NEAlbuquerque, NM [email protected]

Hon. Daniel A. BryantTwelfth Judicial District CourtPO Box 725300 CentralCarrizozo, NM 88301575-648-2902575-648-4580 (fax)

Rodina Cole CaveUNM School of Law1117 Stanford Drive NEAlbuquerque, NM [email protected]

A. Nathaniel ChakeresCoberly & Martinez, LLLP1322 Paseo de PeraltaSanta Fe, NM [email protected]

Jonathon Conrad ClarkGlasheen, Valles & Inderman, LLP1220 Colorado Street, Suite 320Austin, TX 78701806-252-2503806-763-2146 (fax)[email protected]

Dana David4579 Christine DriveHelena, MT [email protected]

Mary Shannon DriscollDriscoll Law LLC10572 New Mexico 337Tijeras, NM [email protected]

Caitlin Craft DupuisComeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall LLPPO Box 669141 E. Palace Avenue (87501)Santa Fe, NM 87504505-982-4611505-988-2987 (fax)[email protected]

Judith M. EspinosaGila Vista, LLCPO Box 30064Albuquerque, NM [email protected]

Josh EwingOffice of the Oregon Federal Public Defender101 S.W. Main, Suite 1700Portland, OR 97204505-326-2123

Elizabeth V. FriedensteinWeinstein & Riley, P.S.5801 Osuna Road NE, Suite A-103Albuquerque, NM 87109505-348-3075505-214-5116 (fax)[email protected]

Eric GuerreroLewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard and Smith6715 Academy Road NE, Suite AAlbuquerque, NM 87109505-828-3600505-828-3900 (fax)[email protected]

Robin S. HammerOffice of the City Attorney3200 Civic Center Circle NERio Rancho, NM 87144505-891-5003505-891-5200 (fax)[email protected]

Thomas E. HareN.M. State Personnel Board2600 Cerrillos RoadSanta Fe, NM 87505505-476-7765505-476-7727 (fax)[email protected]

Paul M. KippertN.M. Department of Finance and Administration407 Galisteo Street, Suite 180Santa Fe, NM [email protected]

Onawa L. LacyLaw Offices of the Public Defender285 S. Boardman Drive, Suite AGallup, NM 87301505-726-4534505-726-4566 (fax)[email protected]

John LovelaceOffice of the Twelfth Judicial District Attorney1000 New York AvenueAlamogordo, NM [email protected]

James S. Plummer2513 Manzano LoopRio Rancho, NM [email protected]

Catherine C. PriceU.S. District Court - District of New Mexico333 Lomas Blvd. NW, Suite 680Albuquerque, NM 87102505-348-2363505-348-2365 (fax)[email protected]

Louis Puccini Jr.Ken Wagner Law, PAPO Box 25167200 Lomas Blvd. NW, Suite 850 (87102)Albuquerque, NM 87125505-242-6300505-242-0790 (fax)[email protected]

Julio C. RomeroButt Thornton & Baehr PCPO Box 31704101 Indian School Road NE, Suite 300 (87110)Albuquerque, NM 87190505-884-0777505-889-8870 (fax)[email protected]

Sarah L. StricklandThird Judicial District Court201 W. Picacho AvenueLas Cruces, NM 88005575-523-8200575-528-8342 (fax)[email protected]

David R. WilliamsPO Box 33047Santa Fe, NM [email protected]

Katie Wilson1732 Archuleta Drive NEAlbuquerque, NM [email protected]

Hooman HedayatiN.M. Human Services Department39A Plaza La PrensaSanta Fe, NM [email protected]

Kevin E. LockhartLaw Office of Kevin E. LockhartPO Box 1321Cloudcroft, NM [email protected]

Michael Ray Murphy9915 Wind Cave Drive NWAlbuquerque, NM [email protected]

Dahlia Olsher-TannenPO Box 4940Los Alamos, NM 87544

Jeffrey Romero3318 La Sala del Este NEAlbuquerque, NM 87111505-244-0274505-271-4537 (fax)[email protected]

Nancy Qi SuResurgence Legal Group, PC10805 Holder Street, Suite 205Cypress, CA [email protected]


























Joey D. Moya, Chief Clerk New Mexico Supreme Court PO Box 848 • Santa Fe, NM 87504-0848 • (505) 827-4860

Recent Rule-Making ActivityAs Updated by the Clerk of the New Mexico Supreme Court

Effective October 14, 2015

Pending Proposed Rule Changes Open for Comment:

Comment DeadlineRule 5 401. [Bail] Pretrial release. 11/12/15Rule 5 408. Pretrial release by designee. 11/12/15Rule 6 408. Pretrial release by designee. 11/12/15Rule 7 408. Pretrial release by designee. 11/12/15Rule 8 408. Pretrial release by designee. 11/12/15Form 9 302A. Order for release on recognizance by designee. 11/12/15

Recently Approved Rule Changes Since Release of 2015 NMRA:

For 2014 year-end rule amendments that became effective Decem-ber 31, 2014, and which now appear in the 2015 NMRA, please see the November 5, 2014, issue of the Bar Bulletin or visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission’s website at http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmrules/NMRuleSets.aspx.

Rule No. Set/Title Effective Date

Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts

1-005.2 Electronic service and filing of pleadings and other papers. 07/01/15

Uniform Jury Instructions-Criminal

14 602 Withdrawn 04/03/1514 603 Withdrawn 04/03/1514 604 Withdrawn 04/03/1514 605 Withdrawn 04/03/1514 610 Withdrawn 04/03/1514 611 Chart 04/03/1514 612 Child abuse not resulting in death or great

bodily harm; essential elements 04/03/1514 615 Child abuse resulting in great bodily harm;

essential elements 04/03/1514 621 Child abuse resulting in death; child at least

12 but less than 18; essential elements 04/03/1514 622 Child abuse resulting in death; reckless

disregard; child under 12; essential elements 04/03/1514 623 Child abuse resulting in death; intentional

act; child under 12; essential elements 04/03/1514 625 Jury procedure for various degrees of

child abuse resulting in death of a child under twelve years of age 04/03/15

Local Rules of the Second Judicial District Court

LR2-303 Electronic filing authorized. 07/01/15

To view all pending proposed rule changes (comment period open or closed), visit the New Mexico Supreme Court’s website at http://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov.

To view recently approved rule changes, visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission’s website at http://www.nmcompcomm.us.

http://www

http://nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov

http://www.nmcompcomm.us


Rules/OrdersFrom the New Mexico Supreme Court

5401. [Bail] Pretrial release. A. Right to bail; recognizance or unsecured appearance bond. Pending trial, any person bailable under Article 2, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution, shall be ordered released pending trial on the person’s personal recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount set by the court, subject to any release conditions imposed [pursuant to] under Paragraph [C] D of this rule, unless the court makes a written finding that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.

B. Secured bonds. Secured bond shall not be set by refer-ence to a predetermined schedule of monetary amounts fixed according to the nature of the charge. If the court makes a written finding that release on personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, in addition to any release conditions imposed [pursuant to] under Paragraph D of this rule, the court shall order the pretrial release of such person subject to the first of the following types of secured bonds [which] that

Proposed Amendments to the Rules Governing Pretrial Release in New Mexico CourtsCommentary from the Supreme Court: Following the deci-sion in State v. Brown, 2014-NMSC-038, 338 P.3d 1276, the New Mexico Supreme Court created the Ad Hoc Pretrial Release Com-mittee to study existing pretrial release law and practice and make recommendations to the Court regarding necessary changes to improve pretrial release procedures in New Mexico. This broad-based committee, with representation from the criminal defense bar, prosecution, judges, the bail industry, jails and detention cen-ters, and the Legislature, has made a number of recommendations, including amendments to Rule 5-401 NMRA, governing pretrial decision-making in the district courts. Following the publication period and any resulting changes to Rule 5-401, the committee expects to recommend corresponding revisions to Rules 6401, 7401, and 8401 NMRA, which govern pretrial procedures in the magistrate, metropolitan, and municipal courts. The committee also recommends proposed new rules to govern early release procedures for defendants who are unlikely to pose a flight risk or a risk to public safety. See Rules 5408, 6408, 7408, and 8408 NMRA. The committee proposes the adoption of a new form, Form 9302A NMRA, order for release on recognizance by designee, to implement Paragraph B of these rules. The committee also recommended that the Court consider con-fidentiality provisions regarding information that an accused submits in order to exercise the right to pretrial release. The Court will refer those questions to the Rules of Evidence Committee for recommendations, and no confidentiality provisions are being circulated for comment at this time.The recommended rule amendments are largely aimed at ensuring that pretrial release practices conform to the standards required by federal and state constitutional law and the principles that have been embodied in the pretrial release rules of New Mexico since their initial promulgation in 1972. Like the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, on which they were modeled, the New Mexico rules have always required that an accused who has not yet been adju-dicated guilty of an offense should be released pending trial on the least restrictive conditions that would minimize flight risk and danger to the community, and have always provided that the requirement of money bonds may be imposed only if nonfinan-cial release conditions would be insufficient methods of release.

Key provisions of the proposed amendments are:1. Adding to Rule 5-401(B) the clarifying statement that “[s]ecured bond shall not be set by reference to a predetermined schedule of monetary amounts fixed ac-

cording to the nature of the charge.” Although the explicit language is new, the concept is not. The bail rules have always required individual assessment of an accused’s flight risk or danger to the community, and New Mexico and federal case law prohibit the use of fixed bonds based only on the nature of the accusation.2. Adding language to Rule 5-401(C)(1) and Paragraph C of the proposed early release rules, Rules 5-408, 6-408, 7-408, and 8-408, that would explicitly permit the use of Supreme Court approved pretrial risk assessment instruments in setting individualized conditions of release. These evidence-based assessment tools, in use in a number of jurisdictions, are the result of empirical studies that determine the degree to which various fac-tors, such as prior criminal history, have been shown to be helpful predictors of individual flight risk or danger to the community. The Second Judicial District Court cur-rently is piloting a pretrial risk assessment instrument.3. Adding in the proposed early release rules more guid-ance and regulation to the longstanding authority of a court to permit detention facilities and other designees to make the simpler release decisions for defendants who present neither a danger nor a flight risk without waiting for a court hearing. 4. Providing time guidelines for bond-setting and bond review hearings to avoid unnecessary delay.

The Court will not make its final decisions nor take action on these recommended revisions until after publication for comment and full review by both the committee and the Court of all resulting input, which is an important aspect of the rule-making process. If you would like to comment on the proposed amendments set forth below before the Court takes final action, you may do so by either submitting a comment electronically through the Supreme Court’s website at www.nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov/ or send-ing your written comments by mail, email, or fax to:

Joey D. Moya, ClerkNew Mexico Supreme CourtP.O. Box 848Santa Fe, New Mexico [email protected] (fax)

Your comments must be received by the Clerk on or before Nov. 12, 2015, to be considered by the Court. Please note that any submitted comments may be posted on the Supreme Court’s website for public viewing.

http://www.nmsupremecourt.nmcourts.gov/



Rules/Orderswill reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any person and the community: (1) the execution by the person of [a bail] an appear-ance bond in [a] the full amount specified in the release order, [amount executed by the person and] secured by a deposit [of] in cash of ten percent (10%) of the amount [set for bail] speci-fied, or secured by such greater or lesser [amount] percentage as is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required. The cash deposit may be returned to the person as provided in Paragraph J of this rule. The cash deposit may be made by or assigned to a paid surety licensed under the Bail Bondsmen Licensing Law provided such paid surety also executes a [bail] surety bond for the full amount [of the bail set] specified; (2) the execution of [a bail] a property bond by the [defendant] person or by unpaid sureties in the full amount [of the bond] specified in the release order, secured by [and] the pledging of real property as required by Rule 5401A NMRA; or (3) either the execution of a [bail] surety bond with licensed sureties in the full amount specified in the release order as provided in Rule 5401B NMRA, or the execution by the person of an appearance bond in the specified amount, [and] secured by a deposit [with the clerk of the court,] in cash[,] of onehundred percent (100%) of the amount [of the bail set] specified, [such deposit to] which may be returned to the person as provided in Paragraph J of this rule. Any [bail] surety, property, or appearance bond shall be sub-stantially in the form approved by the Supreme Court. C. Factors to be considered in determining the type and conditions of release. The court shall[, in determining] use the following information to determine the type of [bail] release and [which] conditions of release that will reasonably assure appear-ance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community[,]: (1) the results of the pretrial risk assessment instrument ap-proved by the Supreme Court for use in the jurisdiction, if any; and (2) [take into account] the available information concern-ing[:] [(1)] (a) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of vio lence or involves a narcotic drug; [(2)] (b) the weight of the evidence against the person; [(3)] (c) the history and characteristics of the person, including: [(a)] (i) the person’s character and physical and mental condition; [(b)] (ii) the person’s family ties; [(c)] (iii) the person’s employment status, employment history, and financial resources available to secure a bond; [(d)] (iv) the person’s past and present residences; [(e)] (v) the length of residence in the com-munity; [(f)] (vi) any facts tending to indicate that the person has strong ties to the community; [(g)] (vii) any facts indicating the possibility that the person will commit new crimes if released; [(h)] (viii) the person’s past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and [(I)] (ix) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, or appeal [or completion of an] for any offense under federal, state, or local law;

[(4)] (d) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release; and [(5)] (e) any other facts tending to indicate the person is likely to appear. D. Additional conditions; conditions to assure orderly ad-ministration of justice. The court, upon release of the defendant or any time thereafter, may enter an order, that such person’s release be subject to: (1) the condition that the person not commit a federal, state, or local crime during the period of release; and (2) the least restrictive of, or combination of, the following conditions the court finds will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, the safety of any other person and the community, and the orderly administration of justice: (a) a condition that the person remain in the custody of a designated person who agrees to assume supervision and to report any violation of a release condition to the court, if the designated person is able reasonably to assure the court that the person will appear as required and will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community; (b) a condition that the person maintain employment, or, if unemployed, actively seek employment; (c) a condition that the person maintain or com-mence an educational program; (d) a condition that the person abide by specified restrictions on personal associations, place of abode, or travel; (e) a condition that the person avoid all contact with an alleged victim of the crime and with a potential witness who may testify concerning the offense; (f) a condition that the person report on a regular basis to a designated pretrial services agency or other agency agreeing to supervise the defendant; (g) a condition that the person comply with a speci-fied curfew; (h) a condition that the person refrain from possess-ing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon; (i) a condition that the person refrain from excessive or any use of alcohol and any use of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance without a prescription by a licensed medical practitioner; (j) a condition that the person undergo available medical, psychological, or psychiatric treatment, including treat-ment for drug or alcohol dependency, and remain in a specified institution if required for that purpose; (k) a condition that the person submit to a urine analysis or alcohol test upon request of a person designated by the court; (l) a condition that the person return to custody for specified hours following release for employment, schooling, or other limited purposes; (m) a condition that the person satisfy any other condition that is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person as required and to assure the safety of any other person and the community. E. Explanation of conditions by court. The release order of the court shall: (1) include a written statement that sets forth all the conditions to which the release is subject, in a manner sufficiently clear and specific to serve as a guide for the person’s conduct; (2) advise the person of: (a) the penalties for violating a condition of release, including the penalties for committing an offense while on pretrial release;


Rules/Orders (b) the consequences for violating a condition of release, including the immediate issuance of a warrant for the person’s arrest; and (c) the consequences of intimidating a witness, vic-tim, or informant, or otherwise obstructing justice; and (3) unless the defendant is released on personal recogni-zance or an unsecured apperance bond, set forth the circumstanc-es [which] that require [that conditions of release be imposed] the imposition of a secured bond. F. Detention. Upon motion by the state to detain a person without bail pending trial, the court shall hold a hearing to de-termine whether bail may be denied [pursuant to] under Article 2, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution. G. [Review of ]Order setting conditions of release; time of filing and review hearing. (1) The court shall issue an order setting conditions of release within forty-eight (48) hours after an arrested person is booked into a detention facility, unless such person has been released from custody by a designee under Rule 5-408 NMRA and Paragraph L of this rule. (2) [A person for whom bail is set by the district court and who after twentyfour (24) hours from the time of transfer to a de-tention facility] If the court requires a secured bond for a person’s release under Paragraph B of this rule, and the person continues to be detained twenty-four (24) hours after the issuance of the order imposing secured bond as a result of the person’s inability to [meet the bail set] post the secured bond, the person shall, upon motion, be entitled to have a hearing to review the [amount of bail set] type of release and conditions of release set forth in the release order. The court shall hold the hearing within forty-eight (48) hours after the filing and service of the motion. Unless the release order is amended and the person is thereupon released, the court shall state in the record the reasons for [continuing the amount of bail set] declining to amend the release order. No person eligible for pretrial release under Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution shall be detained solely because of financial inability to post a secured bond. (3) If the district court requires a secured bond for a person’s release under Paragraph B of this rule, and the person continues to be detained as a result of the person’s inability to post the secured bond, the court shall hold a hearing ten (10) days after the date of arraignment or waiver of arraignment to review the type of release and conditions of release set forth in the release order. The court shall schedule the hearing regardless of whether the defendant has filed a motion for review under Subparagraph (G)(2) of this rule, but the court may vacate the hearing upon stipulation of the parties. Unless the release order is amended and the person is thereupon released, the court shall state in the record the reasons for declining to amend the release order. No person eligible for pretrial release under Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution shall be detained solely because of financial inability to post a secured bond. (4) A person who is ordered released on a condition [which] that requires [that] the person to return to custody after specified hours, upon [application] motion, shall be entitled to [have] a hearing to review the conditions imposed. Unless the requirement is removed and the person is thereupon released on another condition, the court shall state in the record the reason for the continuation of the requirement. (5) A hearing to review conditions of release [pursuant to] under this paragraph shall be held by the district court. H. Amendment of type of release and conditions of release. The court [ordering the release of a person on any condition specified in this rule] may at any time amend [its order at any

time to increase the amount of bail set or impose additional or different conditions of release] the type of release and conditions of release set forth in the release order. If such amendment of the release order results in the detention of the person as a result of the person’s inability to meet such conditions or in the release of the person on a condition requiring the person to return to custody after specified hours, the provisions of [Paragraph G] Subparagraphs (G)(2), (G)(3), or (G)(4) of this rule shall apply. I. Record of hearing. A record shall be made of any hearing held by the district court [pursuant to] under this rule. J. Return of cash deposit. If a person has been released by executing an appearance bond and [depositing] making a cash deposit [set pursuant to] under Subparagraph [(1) or (3) of Paragraph B] (B)(1) or Subparagraph (B)(3) of this rule, when the conditions of the appearance bond have been performed and the [defendant’s guilt for whom bail was required] person’s case has been adjudicated by the [Court] court, the clerk shall return the sum [which] that has been deposited to the person who deposited the sum, or that person’s personal representatives or assigns. K. Cases pending in magistrate or metropolitan court. A person charged with an offense [which] that is not within mag-istrate or metropolitan court trial jurisdiction and who has not been bound over to the district court may file a petition in district court for release under this rule at any time after the person’s arrest [with the clerk of the district court for release pursuant to this rule]. Jurisdiction of the magistrate or metropolitan court to release the accused shall be terminated upon the filing of a petition for release in the district court. Upon the filing of the petition, the district court may: (1) continue the [bail set] type of release and any condi-tion of release imposed by the magistrate or metropolitan court; (2) impose any [bail] other type of release or condition of release authorized by Paragraphs A, B, or D of this rule; (3) continue any revocation of release imposed [pursuant to Rule 5403] by the magistrate or metropolitan court under Rule 6-403 NMRA or Rule 7-403 NMRA; or (4) after a hearing, revoke the release of [a defendant pursuant to] the person under Subparagraph [(2) of Paragraph A] (A)(2) of Rule 5403 NMRA. L. Release from custody by designee. [Any or all of the provisions of this rule, except the provisions of Paragraphs F, G, and K of this rule, may be carried out by responsible persons designated in writing by the] The chief judge of the district court may designate responsible persons in writing to implement the early release procedures set forth in Rule 5-408 NMRA. A des-ignee shall release an arrested person from custody prior to the person’s first appearance before a judge if the person is eligible for early release under Rule 5-408, provided that a designee may contact a judge for special consideration based on exceptional circumstances. No person shall be qualified to serve as a designee if such person or such person’s spouse is: (1) related within the second degree of blood or marriage to a paid surety who is licensed to sell property or corporate bonds within this state; or (2) employed by a jail or detention facility unless desig-nated in writing by the chief judge of the judicial district in which the jail or detention facility is located. M. Bind over [in] to district court. For any case that is not within magistrate or metropolitan court jurisdiction,[The] upon notice to that court, any bond [shall remain in the magistrate or metropolitan court, except that it] shall be transferred to the district court upon the filing of an information or indictment [or bind over to that] in the district court.


Rules/Orders N. Evidence. Information stated in, or offered in connection with, any order entered [pursuant to] under this rule need not conform to the Rules of Evidence. O. Forms. Instruments required by this rule shall be substan-tially in the form approved by the Supreme Court. P. Judicial discretion. Action by any court on any matter relating to [bail] pretrial release shall not preclude the statutory or constitutional disqualification of a judge. [As amended, effective January 1, 1987; October 1, 1987; Septem-ber 1, 1990; December 1, 1990; September 1, 2005; as amended by Supreme Court Order 07830029, effective December 10, 2007; by Supreme Court Order No. 108300033, effective December 10, 2010; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. ___________, effective __________.]

Committee commentary. — [Under Section 13 of Article 2 of the New Mexico Constitution, every accused, except a person accused of first degree murder where the proof is evident or the presumption great, is entitled to bail. Paragraph E was added in 1990 to recognize the amendment of Article 2, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution which permits the denial of bail for 60 days by an order entered within 7 days after incarceration if: (1) the defendant is accused of a felony and has been previously convicted of two or more felonies within the state; or (2) the defendant is accused of a felony involving the use of a deadly weapon and has a prior felony conviction within this state.] This rule provides “the mechanism through which a person may effectuate the right to pretrial release afforded by Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution.” State v. Brown, 2014-NMSC-038, ¶ 37, 338 P.3d 1276. This rule was derived from the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, as amended. [Under the federal bail law, the right to bail is restated as the right to have conditions of release set by the court.] See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142 et seq. [The 1990 amendments to Paragraphs B and C of this rule were taken from Subsections (g) and (c), respectively, of 18 USCA § 1342. In 1990 this rule was amended to encourage more releases on personal recognizance. Release conditions may now be imposed in addition to the execution of a unsecured personal appearance bond or a secured bond.] Because [bail] the type of release and additional conditions of release will usually be set initially by a magistrate or metropolitan court judge, Rules 6401 and 7401 NMRA govern the procedure in those courts. The magistrate, municipal, and metropolitan court [bail] pretrial release rules were derived from and are substantially identical to this rule. Under this rule, the authorized types of [bonds authorized to be posted] release are set forth in the order of priority they are to be considered by the judge [or designee]. The first priority is release upon the execution of a personal recognizance or unse-cured appearance bond. If the court determines that release on personal recognizance or upon the execution of an unsecured bond will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required, the court may require a secured bond. If a secured bond is required to assure the appearance of the defendant, the judge or designee must first consider requiring an appearance bond with a cash deposit of 10% or such other percent-age of the amount of the bond. If this is inadequate, the court then must consider a property bond where the property belongs to the defendant or other unpaid surety. If the court has not authorized a cash deposit of less than 100% of the amount of bond set, the de-fendant may execute an appearance bond and deposit one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the bond with the court. Last of all the defendant may purchase a bond from a paid surety. A paid surety may execute a corporate surety bond or a property bond.

A real or personal property bond may only be executed by a paid surety if the conditions of Rule 5401B NMRA are met. Un-der the 1990 amendments to Rule 5401B NMRA, a bond which has as collateral real or personal property is authorized only in those districts in which an order has been entered finding that the pledging of an irrevocable letter of credit will result in the detention of persons otherwise eligible for release. Although [bail] pretrial release hearings are not required to be a matter of record in the magistrate, metropolitan, or municipal courts, [Form 9302A] Paragraph A of this rule requires the [judge or designee to set forth] court to make written findings regarding the reasons why a secured bond was required rather than release on personal recognizance or unsecured bond. The provision allowing the court to set additional conditions of release in order to assure “the orderly administration of justice” was derived from American Bar Association Standards Relating to Pretrial Release, Section 5.5 (Approved Draft 1968) and 18 USCA § 3142 and Rule 46(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [Pursuant to] Under NMSA 1978, Section 3131 [NMSA 1978], the court may appoint a designee to carry out the provisions of this rule. As set forth in Paragraph L of this rule, a designee [Desig-nees] must be named in writing. A person may not be appointed as a designee if such person is related within the second degree of blood or marriage to a paid surety licensed in this state to execute bail bonds. A jailer may [not] be appointed as a designee. Rule 5-408 NMRA governs the limited circumstances under which a designee shall release an arrested person from custody prior to that person’s first appearance before a judge. Paragraph [M] N of this rule dovetails with [Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph D of] Rule [111101] 11-1101(D)(2) NMRA. Both provide that the Rules of Evidence are not applicable to proceedings in either the magistrate or district court with respect to matters of release or bail. [As amended by Supreme Court Order 07830029, effective December 10, 2007; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. ___________, effective ____________.]

[NEW MATERIAL]Rule 5-408. Pretrial release by designee. A. Scope. This rule shall be implemented by any person des-ignated in writing by the chief judge of the district court under Rule 5-401(L) NMRA. A designee shall issue a written order to release a person from detention prior to the person’s first appear-ance before a judge if the person is eligible for early release under either Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule, provided that a designee may contact a judge for special consideration based on exceptional circumstances. A judge may issue a pretrial order imposing a type of release and conditions of release that differ from those set forth in Paragraphs B and C of this rule. B. Minor offenses; release on recognizance. (1) Persons eligible. A designee shall release a person from custody on personal recognizance, subject to the condition that the person not commit a federal, state, or local crime during the period of release, if the person (a) has been arrested and detained for a municipal code violation, game and fish offense under Chapter 17 NMSA 1978, petty misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, subject to the excep-tions listed in Subparagraph (B)(2) of this rule; and (b) is either a first-time offender with no arrest history or a person with no history of arrests in the past twenty-four (24) months.


Rules/Orders (2) Exceptions. A person arrested for any of the follow-ing offenses is not eligible for release on recognizance under this paragraph: (a) battery under Section 30-3-4 NMSA 1978; (b) aggravated battery under Section 30-3-5(B) NMSA 1978; (c) assault against a household member under Sec-tion 30-3-12 NMSA 1978; (d) battery against a household member under Sec-tion 30-3-15 NMSA 1978; (e) aggravated battery against a household member under Section 30-3-16 NMSA 1978; (f) criminal damage to property of a household member under Section 30-3-18 NMSA 1978; (g) abandonment of a child under Section 30-6-1(B) NMSA 1978; (h) negligent use of a deadly weapon under Section 30-7-4 NMSA 1978; (i) stalking under Section 30-3A-3 NMSA 1978; or (j) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of Section 66-8-102 NMSA 1978 or any municipal code or ordinance. C. Early release based on risk assessment. A designee shall release a person from custody prior to the person’s first appear-ance before a judge if the person qualifies for early release based on a risk assessment and an early release schedule approved by the Supreme Court. The early release schedule shall provide for a specific type of release and conditions of release based on the likelihood that the person will appear in court as required, will not commit a new crime while released pending trial, and will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as determined by a pretrial risk assessment instrument approved by the Supreme Court. D. Type of release and conditions of release set by judge. A person who is not eligible for pretrial release by a designee under either Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule shall have the type of release and conditions of release set by a judge under Rule 5-401 NMRA within forty-eight (48) hours after the person is booked into the detention facility.[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. _____________, effective __________________.]

Committee commentary. — Under NMSA 1978, Section 31-1-1 and Paragraph L of Rule 5-401, the chief judge of the district court may designate responsible persons in writing who are authorized to release certain arrested persons from detention prior to the arrested person’s first appearance before a judge. The exceptions set forth in Subparagraph (B)(2) of this rule include the misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors listed in the Victims of Crime Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-26-1 to -16, and the Crimes Against Household Members Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-3-10 to -18, as well as battery and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. [Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. _____________, effective __________________.]

[NEW MATERIAL]Rule 6-408. Pretrial release by designee. A. Scope. This rule shall be implemented by any person des-ignated in writing by the presiding judge of the magistrate court under Rule 6-401(K) NMRA. A designee shall issue a written order to release a person from detention prior to the person’s first

appearance before a judge if the person is eligible for early release under either Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule, provided that a designee may contact a judge for special consideration based on exceptional circumstances. A judge may issue a pretrial order imposing a type of release and conditions of release that differ from those set forth in Paragraphs B and C of this rule. B. Minor offenses; release on recognizance. (1) Persons eligible. A designee shall release a person from custody on personal recognizance, subject to the condition that the person not commit a federal, state, or local crime during the period of release, if the person (a) has been arrested and detained for a municipal code violation, game and fish offense under Chapter 17 NMSA 1978, petty misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, subject to the excep-tions listed in Subparagraph (B)(2) of this rule; and (b) is either a first-time offender with no arrest history or a person with no history of arrests in the past twenty-four (24) months. (2) Exceptions. A person arrested for any of the following offenses is not eligible for release on recognizance under this paragraph: (a) battery under Section 30-3-4 NMSA 1978; (b) aggravated battery under Section 30-3-5(B) NMSA 1978; (c) assault against a household member under Sec-tion 30-3-12 NMSA 1978; (d) battery against a household member under Sec-tion 30-3-15 NMSA 1978; (e) aggravated battery against a household member under Section 30-3-16 NMSA 1978; (f) criminal damage to property of a household member under Section 30-3-18 NMSA 1978; (g) abandonment of a child under Section 30-6-1(B) NMSA 1978; (h) negligent use of a deadly weapon under Section 30-7-4 NMSA 1978; (i) stalking under Section 30-3A-3 NMSA 1978; or (j) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of Section 66-8-102 NMSA 1978 or any municipal code or ordinance. C. Early release based on risk assessment. A designee shall release a person from custody prior to the person’s first appear-ance before a judge if the person qualifies for early release based on a risk assessment and an early release schedule approved by the Supreme Court. The early release schedule shall provide for a specific type of release and conditions of release based on the likelihood that the person will appear in court as required, will not commit a new crime while released pending trial, and will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as determined by a pretrial risk assessment instrument approved by the Supreme Court. D. Type of release and conditions of release set by judge. A person who is not eligible for pretrial release by a designee under Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule shall have the type of release and conditions of release set by a judge under Rule 6-401 NMRA within forty-eight (48) hours after the person is booked into the detention facility.

Committee commentary. — Under NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-1 and Paragraph K of Rule 6-401, the presiding judge of the mag-istrate court may designate responsible persons in writing who are authorized to release certain arrested persons from detention prior to the arrested person’s first appearance before a judge. The


Rules/Ordersexceptions set forth in Subparagraph (B)(2) of this rule include the misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors listed in the Victims of Crime Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-26-1 to -16, and the Crimes Against Household Members Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-3-10 to -18, as well as battery and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. [Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. _____________, effective __________________.]

[NEW MATERIAL]Rule 7-408. Pretrial release by designee. A. Scope. This rule shall be implemented by any person des-ignated in writing by the chief judge of the metropolitan court under Rule 7-401(J) NMRA. A designee shall issue a written order to release a person from detention prior to the person’s first ap-pearance before a judge if the person is eligible for early release under either Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule, provided that a designee may contact a judge for special consideration based on exceptional circumstances. A judge may issue a pretrial order imposing a type of release and conditions of release that differ from those set forth in Paragraphs B and C of this rule. B. Minor offenses; release on recognizance. (1) Persons eligible. A designee shall release a person from custody on personal recognizance, subject to the condition that the person not commit a federal, state, or local crime during the period of release, if the person (a) has been arrested and detained for a municipal code violation, game and fish offense under Chapter 17 NMSA 1978, petty misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, subject to the excep-tions listed in Subparagraph (B)(2) of this rule; and (b) is either a first-time offender with no arrest history or a person with no history of arrests in the past twenty-four (24) months. (2) Exceptions. A person arrested for any of the follow-ing offenses is not eligible for release on recognizance under this paragraph: (a) battery under Section 30-3-4 NMSA 1978; (b) aggravated battery under Section 30-3-5(B) NMSA 1978; (c) assault against a household member under Sec-tion 30-3-12 NMSA 1978; (d) battery against a household member under Sec-tion 30-3-15 NMSA 1978; (e) aggravated battery against a household member under Section 30-3-16 NMSA 1978; (f) criminal damage to property of a household member under Section 30-3-18 NMSA 1978; (g) abandonment of a child under Section 30-6-1(B) NMSA 1978; (h) negligent use of a deadly weapon under Section 30-7-4 NMSA 1978; (i) stalking under Section 30-3A-3 NMSA 1978; or (j) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of Section 66-8-102 NMSA 1978 or any municipal code or ordinance. C. Early release based on risk assessment. A designee shall release a person from custody prior to the person’s first appear-ance before a judge if the person qualifies for early release based on a risk assessment and an early release schedule approved by the Supreme Court. The early release schedule shall provide for a specific type of release and conditions of release based on the likelihood that the person will appear in court as required, will

not commit a new crime while released pending trial, and will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as determined by a pretrial risk assessment instrument approved by the Supreme Court. D. Type of release and conditions of release set by judge. A person who is not eligible for pretrial release by a designee under Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule shall have the type of release and conditions of release set by a judge under Rule 7-401 NMRA within forty-eight (48) hours after the person is booked into the detention facility.

Committee commentary. — Under NMSA 1978, Section 31-1-1 and Paragraph K of Rule 5-401, the chief judge of the metropoli-tan court may designate responsible persons in writing who are authorized to release certain arrested persons from detention prior to the arrested person’s first appearance before a judge. The exceptions set forth in Subparagraph (B)(2) of this rule include the misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors listed in the Victims of Crime Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 31-26-1 to -16, and the Crimes Against Household Members Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-3-10 to -18, as well as battery and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. [Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. _____________, effective __________________.]

[NEW MATERIAL]Rule 8-408. Pretrial release by designee. A. Scope. This rule shall be implemented by any person des-ignated in writing by the presiding judge of the municipal court under Rule 8-401(H) NMRA. A designee shall issue a written order to release a person from detention prior to the person’s first appearance before a judge if the person is eligible for early release under either Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule, provided that a designee may contact a judge for special consideration based on exceptional circumstances. A judge may issue a pretrial order imposing a type of release and conditions of release that differ from those set forth in Paragraphs B and C of this rule. B. Minor offenses; release on recognizance. (1) Persons eligible. A designee shall release a person from custody on personal recognizance, subject to the condition that the person not commit a federal, state, or local crime during the period of release, if the person (a) has been arrested and detained for a municipal code violation or a petty misdemeanor, subject to the exceptions listed in Subparagraph (B)(2) of this rule; and (b) is either a first-time offender with no arrest history or a person with no history of arrests in the past twenty-four (24) months. (2) Exceptions. A person arrested for any of the follow-ing offenses is not eligible for release on recognizance under this paragraph: (a) battery; (b) any offense involving domestic violence or a crime against a household member; (c) negligent use of a deadly weapon; (d) stalking; or (e) driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. C. Early release based on risk assessment. A designee shall release a person from custody prior to the person’s first appear-ance before a judge if the person qualifies for early release based on a risk assessment and an early release schedule approved by


Rules/Ordersthe Supreme Court. The early release schedule shall provide for a specific type of release and conditions of release based on the likelihood that the person will appear in court as required, will not commit a new crime while released pending trial, and will not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as determined by a pretrial risk assessment instrument approved by the Supreme Court. D. Type of release and conditions of release set by judge. A person who is not eligible for pretrial release by a designee under Paragraph B or Paragraph C of this rule shall have the type of release and conditions of release set by a judge under Rule 8-401 NMRA within forty-eight (48) hours after the person is booked into the detention facility.

Committee commentary. — Under NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-1 and Paragraph J of Rule 8-401, the presiding judge of the munici-pal court may designate responsible persons in writing who are authorized to release certain arrested persons from detention prior to the arrested person’s first appearance before a judge.[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. _____________, effective __________________.]

[NEW MATERIAL]9302A. Order for release on recognizance by designee.[For use with District Court Rule 5-408(B) NMRA,Magistrate Court Rule 6408(B) NMRA,Metropolitan Court Rule 7408(B) NMRA, andMunicipal Court Rule 8408(B) NMRA]

STATE OF NEW MEXICO[COUNTY OF___________________][CITY OF_____________________]__________________________ COURT

[STATE OF NEW MEXICO][COUNTY OF __________________][CITY OF ____________________]

v. No. ___________

________________________________, Defendant.

ORDER FOR RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE BY DESIGNEE

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be released on personal recognizance on the defendant’s promise to appear and subject to the condition that the defendant not commit any federal, state, or local crime during the period of release.

APPEARANCE BOND

I ______________________, defendant in the aboveentitled mat-ter, do hereby bind myself to the following conditions of release:

I agree to appear before the above court on ________________, at ______ [a.m.] [p.m.] in courtroom _______ and at such other places as I may be required to appear, in accordance with any and all orders and directions relating to my appearance in the aboveentitled matter as may be given or issued by the above court or any municipal, magistrate, metropolitan, district, or appellate court to which the above entitled case may be filed, removed, or transferred.

I understand that the court may have me arrested at any time, without notice, to review and reconsider these conditions.

I understand that if I fail to appear as required, I may be pros-ecuted and sent to [jail] [the penitentiary] for the separate offense of failure to appear. I agree to comply fully with each of the con-ditions imposed on my release and to notify the court promptly in the event I change my contact information indicated below.

I understand that my conditions of release may be revoked and that I may be charged with a separate criminal offense if I in-timidate or threaten a witness, the victim, or an informant, or if I otherwise obstruct justice.

I further understand that my conditions of release will be revoked if I violate a federal, state, or local criminal law.

_______________________ ______________Defendant’s signature Date of signature

_______________________ ______________Time of release Date of release

_______________________ ______________Cell phone number Alternate phone number

__________________________Email address

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________Mailing address (include city, state, and zip code)

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________Physical address (include city, state, and zip code)

The above conditions of release are hereby approved. The defen-dant shall be released from custody upon the execution of this agreement.

_______________________ ______________Date Designee

[Approved by Supreme Court Order No. ___________, effective __________________.]


Advance Opinions http://www.nmcompcomm.us/

From the New Mexico Supreme Court and Court of Appeals

Certiorari Granted, June 19, 2015, No. 35,298

From the New Mexico Court of Appeals

Opinion Number: 2015-NMCA-073

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.ANTHONY HOLT,

Defendant-AppellantDocket No. 33,090 (filed April 27, 2015)

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTYFERNANDO MACIAS, District Judge

HECTOR H. BALDERASAttorney General

Santa Fe, New MexicoJACQUELINE R. MEDINA

Assistant Attorney GeneralAlbuquerque, New Mexico

for Appellee

JORGE A. ALVARADOChief Public DefenderKARL ERICH MARTELL

Assistant Appellate DefenderSanta Fe, New Mexico

for Appellant

Opinion

Michael D. Bustamante, Judge{1} Anthony Holt (Defendant) was trying to remove a window screen from Carolyn Stamper’s (Stamper) home when he no-ticed her through the window. Although he turned and left the premises without breaching the window, he was convicted of one count of breaking and entering and now appeals on two grounds. First, he argues that the Legislature did not intend to punish as breaking and entering an in-trusion into the space between the screen and the window. Second, he maintains that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude that he in fact entered that space. We affirm.BACKGROUND{2} Stamper, a resident of Las Cruces, New Mexico, was relaxing on her sofa one December afternoon when she heard the doorbell ring and a rustling sound at the front door. She did not see anyone through the peephole in the door. She then heard a “metal on metal” sound at the window, which was approximately seven feet from the front door. The window was open ap-proximately four inches because Stamper’s “smelly old dog” was in the room with her. The curtains over the window were drawn

except for a gap of about four inches. Through the gap, Stamper could see a man at the window who was working to remove the aluminum window screen. The screen was halfway removed from the window and the man was trying to get the screen free of the track at the bottom of the win-dow frame. At trial, Stamper agreed with the State that while holding the screen, the man’s “fingers were . . . in that area between the window and the screen[.]”{3} After a few seconds, the man looked up and noticed Stamper. He said, “Oh, I’m sorry,” then turned and left. As he was leaving, Stamper told him, “You better be sorry, you thief[.]” Stamper testified that the screen “was pretty well destroyed” and had to be replaced. She also testified that she was frightened by the incident and that it “was the first time [she] had been confronted with this in [her] own home.”{4} A jury convicted Defendant of one count of breaking and entering, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-8(A) (1981). Additional facts are provided as necessary to our discussion.DISCUSSION{5} Defendant makes two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the facts of this case do not fit within a breaking and entering charge, because entering the

space between a screen and a window is not the same as entering the interior of a home or structure. Second, he argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conclusion that Defendant entered the space between the screen and window. We address these arguments in turn.The Breaking and Entering Statute Encompasses Entry Into the Space Between the Screen and Window{6} Defendant argues that, even if his fingers were between the screen and the window, he cannot be convicted of break-ing and entering. Defendant makes two contentions: (1) the plain language of the breaking and entering statute requires entry into the interior of a structure, i.e., entry beyond the last barrier to the struc-ture’s interior; and (2) the breaking and entering statute is ambiguous because it does not define the boundaries of a struc-ture, and thus, under the rule of lenity, must be construed against the State. We interpret these arguments as alternatives because the rule of lenity applies only if, af-ter examination of the plain language and other tools of statutory construction, the statute remains ambiguous. State v. Hall, 2013-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 294 P.3d 1235 (“A statute is ambiguous for the purpose of the rule of lenity only if reasonable doubt per-sists about a statute’s intended scope even after resort to the language and structure, legislative history, and motivating policies of the statute.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). After examining the statute’s language and purpose, as well as cases interpreting it and similar statutes, we conclude that Defendant’s conduct falls within that which the Legislature sought to punish. Based on our construction of the statute, we conclude that it is not ambigu-ous such that the rule of lenity applies. Id. Hence, we need not address Defendant’s second argument.{7} Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, ¶ 8, 136 N.M. 372, 98 P.3d 1022. The goal of statutory interpretation is “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We begin by examining the “plain language” of the statute and, if that language is clear and unambiguous, we refrain from further construction. State v. Johnson, 2001-NMSC-001, ¶ 6, 130 N.M. 6, 15 P.3d 1233. “The plain meaning rule, however, is only a guideline for determining the legislative

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/


http://www.nmcompcomm.us/Advance Opinionsintent. It is the responsibility of th[e] Court to search for and effectuate the purpose and object of the underlying statutes.” Id. Thus, “[t]he plain meaning rule ‘must yield on oc-casion to an intention otherwise discerned in terms of equity, legislative history, or other sources.’ ” Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, ¶ 9 (citation omitted). Finally, “statutes relating to the same general topic should be interpreted in light of each other[.]” State v. Parvilus, 2014-NMSC-028, ¶ 16, 332 P.3d 281. As discussed in more detail below, we rely on the burglary statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-16-3 (1971), as an aid in our interpre-tation because of its similarities with the breaking and entering statute.{8} Section 30-14-8(A) defines “breaking and entering” as

the unauthorized entry of any . . . dwelling or other structure, mov-able or immovable, where entry is obtained by fraud or deception, or by the breaking or dismantling of any part of the . . . dwelling or other structure, or by the break-ing or dismantling of any device used to secure the . . . dwelling or other structure.

{9} As it relates to the facts here, UJI 14-1410 NMRA requires the jury to find that (1) “[t]he defendant entered [the structure] without permission” and (2) “[t]he entry was obtained by” breaking or dismantling a part of the structure. Un-like in some other states’ statutes, neither the breaking and entering statute nor the burglary statute states what delimits a structure. Compare § 30-14-8(A) and § 30-16-3 with Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1501(3) (2012) (defining “[e]ntry” as “the intrusion of any part of any instrument or any part of a person’s body inside the external boundaries of a structure” (em-phasis added)). Nor do they state that entry into any part of a structure will suffice. Compare § 30-14-8(A) and § 30-16-3 with Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (West 2007) (prohibiting entry of a building “or any portion of a building”). In State v. Of-fice of Public Defender ex rel. Muqqddin, the Supreme Court relied on the absence of such language in the burglary statute to reject the idea that entry into a part of a structure is equivalent to entry into the structure itself, stating that “the Legislature has given no indication that it intended [such equivalency].” 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 38, 285 P.3d 622. While the breaking and

entering statute provides that a breaking may be accomplished by “breaking or dismantling any part of the . . . dwelling or other structure,” the phrase “any part of ” pertains only to breaking or disman-tling, not to the protected spaces. Section 30-14-8(A); see Hale v. Basin Motor Co., 1990-NMSC-068, ¶ 9, 110 N.M. 314, 795 P.2d 1006 (“Relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extend-ing to or including others more remote.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). We conclude that the plain language of the breaking and entering statute sheds little light on the Legislature’s intent as to the issue before us: whether the space between a window screen and an open window is protected space under the statute.{10} We next examine the purposes of the breaking and entering statute to determine whether the conduct here falls within the harm the Legislature sought to prevent. Because “New Mexico’s breaking-and-entering statute is itself grounded in com-mon law burglary[,]” cases interpreting the burglary statute inform our analysis. State v. Rubio, 1999-NMCA-018, ¶ 13, 126 N.M. 579, 973 P.2d 256; see UJI 14-1410, comm. cmt. (“New Mexico’s breaking and entering statute is a type of statutory burglary.”). Like burglary, “the purpose of New Mexico’s breaking-and-entering statute is . . . to protect possessory rights.” Rubio, 1999-NMCA-018, ¶ 15; Muqqd-din, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 40 (stating that burglary protects possessory rights). Those possessory rights, however, “go beyond the mere right to physical possession of an ob-ject” and include the right to exclude, pri-vacy interests, and “security of habitation.” Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 40-43. “It is the invasion of privacy and the victim’s feeling of being personally violated that is the harm caused by the modern burglar, and the evil that our society is attempting to deter through modern burglary stat-utes.” Id. ¶ 42.{11} “[I]n order for an area to be consid-ered prohibited space under [the burglary statute], it must have some sort of enclo-sure.” Id. ¶ 44 (citing State v. Foulenfont, 1995-NMCA-028, ¶¶ 10-11, 119 N.M. 788, 895 P.2d 1329). “[I]t is this enclosed space that the Legislature intended to protect.” Id. The burglary statute defines prohibited

space as “any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable[.]” Section 30-16-3. The break-ing and entering statute includes the same list. Section 30-14-8(A). In both statutes, the spaces in which possessory, privacy, and security interests are implicated are delineated by an enclosure. See Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 44.{12} Our question thus becomes whether a window screen forms an enclosure such that penetration beyond the screen is sufficient for entry of a structure. “[I]n general, the roof, walls, doors, and windows constitute parts of a building’s outer boundary, the penetration of which is sufficient for entry.” People v. Valencia, 46 P.3d 920, 925 (Cal. 2002), disapproved of by People v. Yarbrough, 281 P.3d 68 (Cal. 2012)1; see Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 48 (stating that “[a] window, by its nature, creates an opening in an enclosure.”). But other types of boundar-ies might also suffice because “[i]t is the na-ture of the enclosure that creates [prohibited space].” Id. ¶ 45. “‘[T]he proper question is whether the nature of a structure’s composi-tion is such that a reasonable person would expect some protection from unauthorized intrusions.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Nible, 247 Cal. Rptr. 396, 399 (Ct. App. 1988), holding modified by Valencia, 46 P.3d at 924).{13} Relying in part on this test, the Muqqddin Court concluded that “a vehicle’s gas tank and wheel wells do not constitute protected space under [the burglary statute].” Id. ¶ 12. No New Mexico court since Muqqddin has used this test to address the legal question here. However, in Nible, the case from which the test was derived, the California Court of Appeals stated that “the focus of the question whether the penetra-tion of a [partially open] window screen constitutes a burglarious entry must be on whether a reasonable person would believe a window screen provides some protection against unauthorized intru-sions.” 247 Cal. Rptr. at 399. It found that the answer to this question “is unequivo-cally in the affirmative.” Id. It went on to state that

the screen door [or window] is not to be considered as a mere protection against flies, but rather as a permanent part of the dwell-ing. The holdings [in case law] proceed, it would seem, on the grounds that the screen door [or

1In Yarbrough, the California Supreme Court “disapprove[d] as ill-considered dictum” a statement in Valencia that an “unenclosed balcony” was not encompassed within the “reasonable belief test.” Yarbrough, 281 P.3d at 71.



http://www.nmcompcomm.us/Advance Opinionswindow] is a part of the house on which the occupants rely for protection and that to open such a door [or window] is a violation of the security of the dwelling house which is the peculiar gravamen of a burglarious breaking.

Id. (second, fourth, and fifth alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It concluded that “when a screen which forms the outer barrier of a protected structure is penetrated, an entry has been made for purposes of the bur-glary statute.” Id. We note that the Nible court found this analysis “especially ap-posite to the [facts in that] case, where the window screen was affixed in a slot in the frame with no handle or other device to facilitate its removal from the exterior of the apartment.” Id. Here, Stamper testified that removal of the screen required use of a screwdriver or knife and that it was “not . . . a snap” to remove. In addition, in Nible, like here, the window behind the screen was partially open and the residence’s oc-cupants were inside. See id. at 397.{14} Similarly, in Valencia, the Supreme Court of California relied on a slightly dif-ferent formulation of the test2 to conclude that “penetration into the area behind a window screen amounts to an entry of a building within the meaning of the bur-glary statute even when the window itself is closed and is not penetrated.” Valencia, 46 P.3d at 927. The Court stated:

[A] window screen is clearly part of the outer boundary of a building for purposes of burglary.

A reasonable person certainly would believe that a window screen enclosed an area into which a member of the general public could not pass without authorization. . . . [W]indow screens, which announce that intrusion is unauthorized, do not limit their message to flies but extend it to burglars as well.

Id.{15} Other courts examining similar circumstances have reached similar con-clusions. For example, in Commonwealth v. Burke, the Massachusetts Supreme Court stated that “[it could] find no support at common law for the view . . . that . . . an entry must be accompanied by a removal of all remaining barriers (i.e., the inner window) for it to be actionable” and held that “the more common view is that outer window coverings should be treated as part of the dwelling itself, and any entry beyond them, no matter if further im-peded by additional window coverings, should be punished.” 467 N.E.2d 846, 849 (Mass. 1984). It concluded that, therefore, “[e]vidence that the defendant placed his hand between the broken storm window and the inner window would be sufficient to warrant a finding of an entry under [the Massachusetts burglary statute].” Id. The South Carolina Supreme Court held in State v. Chappell that a screen covering a window “was more than a mere protec-tion against flies and mosquitoes; it was an enclosing part of the dwelling house” and that where the defendant “tor[e] away” the

corner of the screen and “inserted his hand through the hole thus made and raised the window sash[, t]his was not only a break-ing, but was an entry sufficient in law to constitute burglary[.]” 193 S.E. 924, 925 (S.C. 1937)3; cf. State v. Kindred, 307 P.3d 1038, 1040-41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (exam-ining “whether the ‘external boundar[y]’ of the structure, as that phrase is used in [Section 13-1501(3) of Arizona’s burglary statute], is the exterior of the door, or whether a person or instrument must penetrate past the door in order to enter the structure” and holding that “a person must penetrate whatever forms a struc-ture’s outer boundary—a door, window, or wall, for example—but need not go further to have entered the structure.”)4; Barrick v. State, 119 N.E.2d 550, 553 (Ind. 1954) (stating that a “breaking” sufficient for burglary “includes the putting aside of any material part of the building intended as a security against invasion, such as removing a window screen” (emphasis added))5; State v. Gatewood, 221 P.2d 392, 396 (Kan. 1950) (holding that there was an entry where the defendant had broken a screen door even though he had not opened the wooden door behind it).6

{16} Defendant points to cases using the term “interior” in their analyses of “entry” to support his contention that the breaking and entering statute requires some further penetration into the struc-ture than occurred here. For example, in State v. Sorrelhorse, this Court stated that “the term ‘entry’ in the criminal code requires only the slightest penetration of

2Whereas the Nible court stated the test as “whether a reasonable person would believe a window screen provides some protection against unauthorized intrusions[,]” 247 Cal. Rptr. at 399, the Valencia Court stated the test as “whether a reasonable person would believe that the element of the building in question enclosed an area into which a member of the general public could not pass without authorization.” 46 P.3d at 926. 3The dissent argues that Chappell does not support our conclusion. But the facts in that case are very similar to those here: the defendant tore a screen and reached through to raise the window sash. Id. at 925. There is no indication in that case that any part of the defendant’s body went through the window itself. Id. Thus, like here, the requisite entry was accomplished by entering the space between the screen and (open) window. 4Although we agree with the dissent that Kindred is distinguishable because it relies on Arizona’s burglary statute, which requires penetration of any “external boundary,” we disagree that the Kindred court “found no other authority,” ¶ 40, for its conclusion that “insertion of [a] pry bar into the door jamb constitutes entry as contemplated by” that statute. Id. at 1041. Indeed, the court cited to five cases, including Burke, in support of its holding. Id. 5In Barrick, the court analyzed only whether the rattling of the doors constituted a “breaking” sufficient for attempted burglary if such a crime existed in Indiana. Id. at 553 n.1. It did not analyze whether an entry occurred. It is cited here for its recognition that a window screen serves as “security against invasion.” Id. 6As stated in the dissent, the facts in Gatewood included entry into an enclosed porch attached to the house, which the court held was an entry sufficient for burglary. 221 P.2d at 394. “The entrance door to the screen porch, however, was not the only ‘outer door’ the appellant broke” in that case. Id. at 395. The part of the opinion we rely on has to do with whether entry was accomplished where another screen door was “not only broken but a hook which fastened the door was lifted and the screen door was opened” but the wooden door behind it was not opened. Id. at 395-96. The court concluded that “[the defendant] did enter his hand and an arm, at least partially, when he unsuccessfully attempted to unlock the inside door with a key.” Id. Thus, this portion of Gatewood supports our conclusion.



http://www.nmcompcomm.us/Advance Opinionsan interior space.” 2011-NMCA-095, ¶ 7, 150 N.M. 536, 263 P.3d 313. Similarly, in State v. Reynolds, the Court noted that “[a]ny penetration, however slight, of the interior space is sufficient [to constitute entry].” 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 37, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, neither of these cases was using the term to address the question presented here. Rather, both Sorrelhorse and Reynolds were concerned with the extent to which the defendant penetrated the prohibited space. See Sorrel-horse, 2011-NMCA-095, ¶¶ 6-8; Reynolds, 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 37. {17} The question here, in contrast, has to do with what defines the prohibited space. “[T]he established rule [is] that cases are not authority for propositions not consid-ered[.]” Padilla v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2002-NMCA-001, ¶ 10, 131 N.M. 419, 38 P.3d 187 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff ’d but criticized by, 2003-NMSC-011, 133 N.M. 661, 68 P.3d 901. Thus, we decline to ascribe undue significance to use of the word “interior” in those cases.{18} Similarly, the dissent cites to out-of-state cases for the proposition that an “entry” requires a crossing of a structure’s threshold. See ¶ 41. Several of these are directly on point. For example, in State v. Pigques, 310 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Mo. 1958), the defendant “had entered into the space between [some] outer wooden doors and [an] inner wire-mesh door.” The court thus considered “whether his entry into that space would constitute an entry into the building within the meaning of [Missouri’s burglary statute].” Id. Relying in part on the principle that entry requires a breach of the last barrier to the interior of the structure, the court held that the defendant had not completed a burglary but instead could be convicted only of attempted burglary. Id. at 945-46. In State v. McCall, on which Pigques relied, the Alabama Supreme Court considered whether there was an entry where the defendant “wrested open the window shutters, and his hands protruded beyond the line made by the shutters when shut, . . . notwithstanding the sash remained down and the glass was unbroken.” 4 Ala. 643, 644 (1843) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court concluded that

[i]t cannot be, that the common security of the dwelling house is violated by breaking one of the shutters of a door or win-

dow which has several. True, it weakens the security which the mansion is supposed to afford, and renders the breach more easy; but as additional force will be necessary before an entry can be effected, there can, under such circumstances, be no burglary committed.

Id. at 646. Thus, the court held that there was no burglary because “there was noth-ing but a breach of the blinds, and no entry beyond the sash window [and t]he threshold of the window had not been passed[.]” Id.{19} Interestingly, another case relied on by the dissent takes a different approach. In Miller v. State, the defendant had cut a hole in the roof of a store, climbed into the attic, and cut a hole in the ceiling, but had not entered the interior of the store itself. 187 So. 2d 51, 52 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966). The defendant “contend[ed] that breaking of the roof and the subsequent breaking of the ceiling [wa]s not enough to constitute entry.” Id. The court stated that it “would be inclined to agree with [the defendant] if it were not for the fact that there [wa]s evidence in the record that there was an airspace between the roof and the ceiling. . . . [I]t is reasonable to conclude that it would be necessary for the [defendant] to intrude himself, or some part of himself, into the hole that he had created in the roof in order to cut a hole in the ceiling on the other side of the airspace.” Id. 52-53. Hence, in Miller, entry beyond the last barrier into the store (the ceiling) was not required to effect an entry. In other words, an entry into the space between the outer barrier and inner barrier was sufficient for a breaking and entering charge. Id. at 53.{20} We recognize that the Pigques and McCall courts came to a conclusion different from ours and from the conclu-sions reached in Nible, Valencia, Burke, and Chappell. Faced with two competing analyses, we must choose the path most consonant with the purpose of our statute and Supreme Court precedent. We believe we have done so. Based on the test stated in Muqqddin and the reasoning of our sister states’ courts, we conclude that a reason-able person would expect the window screen here to afford some protection from unauthorized intrusions. See Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 45. Consequently, we conclude that if any part of Defendant entered the space between the screen and the window, he “entered” the structure for purposes of the breaking and entering statute.

{21} To the extent that Defendant argues that our holding will produce absurd re-sults because “[t]his interpretation would convict of [b]reaking and [e]ntering any person who opens a screen door to knock on the door itself[,]” we disagree because under the “reasonable belief test” it would be unreasonable to believe that an unlocked screen door was a barrier “a member of the general public could not pass without authorization.” Valencia, 46 P.3d at 926.}22{ In Muqqddin , t he Supreme Court cautioned lower courts against “expand[ing] . . . the reach of . . . statute[s] . . . without any parallel change in the stat-ute.” 2012-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 1, 49. Our con-clusion does not do so. In Muqqddin, the gas tank and wheel well were not enclosed spaces in which “things are stored and per-sonal items can be kept private.” Id. ¶ 61. In contrast, a home is a structure the Legis-lature clearly intended to protect. See id. ¶ 39 (stating that the common-law purpose of burglary—security of the home—still applies). Unlike the unenclosed parts of vehicles in Muqqddin, the screen here was no less a component of the home’s enclo-sure than the walls, windows, or doors. Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, our analysis does not depend on the perimeter or “close” concept that was rejected in Muqqddin. Id. ¶ 46. In rejecting that con-cept, the Muqqddin Court was specifically rejecting the idea of an “imaginary plane created by some portion of a structure that is by its nature open to the elements.” Id. Rather, our analysis is based on whether the window screen—a real, non-imaginary device—provided protection against intru-sion and enclosed protected space. See id. ¶ 45. Because we conclude that it did, Defen-dant’s tlineplacement of his hands behind the window screen was an intrusion into the structure’s enclosure and infringed on Stamper’s possessory rights. Such conduct is associated with the “feeling of violation and vulnerability” that the Legislature sought to prevent with the breaking and entering statute. See id. ¶ 43.There is Sufficient Evidence to Support the Jury’s Conclusion That Defendant “Entered” the Structure{23} We turn next to Defendant’s sec-ond argument that there was insufficient evidence that Defendant intruded into the structure at all. “In reviewing the suf-ficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the



http://www.nmcompcomm.us/Advance Opinionsevidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176. After viewing the evidence in this light, we examine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).{24} To convict Defendant, the jury had to find that (1) “the defendant entered [Stamper’s residence] without permission; the least intrusion constitutes an entry;” and (2) “the entry was obtained by the dismantling of a window screen[.]” See UJI 14-1410. As we have discussed, be-cause the window screen was part of the enclosure around the home, any intrusion into the space between the screen and window constitutes an “entry” for pur-poses of the breaking and entering statute. See Sorrelhorse, 2011-NMCA-095, ¶ 7 (“[T]he term ‘entry’ in the criminal code requires only the slightest penetration of an interior space.”). Stamper testified that “[she] saw this man, and he had the screen halfway off the window, and he had his hand on each side of the screen, and he was twisting it and turning it and looking down. . . . He was trying to get the screen off.” She described Defendant’s fingers as being “over the screen.” On redirect, she agreed with the State that Defendant’s fingers “were then in that area between the window and the screen[.]” Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, this testimony is sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that Defendant had intruded into the protected space between the screen and window.CONCLUSION{25} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.{26} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

I CONCUR:JAMES J. WECHSLER, JudgeRODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (dissenting).

KENNEDY, Judge (dissenting).{27} This Opinion unnecessarily expands the physical space into which “entry” must occur for breaking and entering exactly as we have recently been warned against pur-suing by our Supreme Court. By defining “entry” through a solely judicial construc-

tion of the space to which it applies, the Opinion needlessly creates new definition for crimes that are already adequately defined. This Opinion for the first time establishes the outermost perimeter of a structure’s space as what defines the scope of the word “entry” for breaking and enter-ing and, presumably, for burglary as well. [Op. ¶ 18]. The Opinion, correctly, in my view, sees ambiguity in the central premise of “what delimits a structure.” [Op. ¶ 9] It recognizes that the Arizona legislature has explicitly defined “entry” as an “intru-sion . . . inside the external boundaries of a structure or unit of real property” and that Texas’s statute prohibits entry of a building “or any portion of a building.” Id. California accomplished expanding an intrusion within the exterior plane of a building judicially, an accomplishment the Majority now seeks to duplicate. I read Muqqddin as a restriction on what the Majority seeks to accomplish in this case. Accordingly, I do not believe Muqqddin’s citation to Valencia and Nible was intended to encourage our changing the use of the word “entry” by expanding the boundary of space to be entered in a way they took pains to criticize. Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 45. The Supreme Court undid our long-standing tendency to expand the spaces covered by breaking and entering and burglary; embarking again here on that path is unwise and unnecessary. With regard to Valencia and Nible, our Supreme Court specifically stated no more than that “a burglary can be committed through an open window[,]” that I see as protecting from a penetration of interior protected space, not the outermost plane of struc-ture. Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 48.{28} Statutes are strictly construed against the state, and we are to resolve doubt about their construction in favor of the rule of lenity. State v. Bybee, 1989-NMCA- 071, ¶ 12, 109 N.M. 44, 781 P.2d 316. Criminal statutes may not be made applicable beyond their intended scope if the legislative proscription is plain. Id. “We are not to enlarge or amend [a] statute by judicial fiat.” Id. ¶ 15. “The Legislature is free to define the prohibited space of burglary to include any part of almost anything. But absent a clearer intent to do so, we should not ourselves do that which the Legislature has declined to do. It is for

the Legislature alone to define statutory criminal acts, and when it does not do so clearly, the rule of lenity compels judicial restraint.” Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 37. In Muqqddin, as here, the acts in that case constituting the crime were “already punished under our statutes as other, lesser crimes.” Id. ¶ 50 (holding that judicially expanding the legal definition of a crime to include behavior already punished as other, lesser crimes transgresses legislative intent). We recently took this conserva-tive approach instructed by Muqqddin to heart, overruling the holding in State v. Tower to hold that entry into a commercial establishment in violation of a no trespass notice was not a predicate “entry” sufficient to fulfill the element of commercial bur-glary. 2002-NMCA-109, ¶ 9, 133 N.M. 32, 59 P.3d 1264, overruled on other grounds by State v. Archuleta, 2015-NMCA-___, ¶ 1, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014). We should be so restrained in this case.Penetration of Mere Outer Perimeters as “Entry” Was Rejected in Muqqddin{29} In Muqqddin, our Supreme Court re-versed a tortured construction of “entry” by pointing out that this Court, over a period of decades, had engaged in an “unprecedented . . . expansion” of the reach of the burglary statute without there being corresponding legislative changes. 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 1. Our holding that “[a]ny penetration of a vehicle’s perimeter is . . . a penetration of the vehicle itself,” id. ¶ 10 (internal quota-tion marks and citation omitted), led in the next case to our holding that the “removal of a vehicle’s wheels is sufficient to constitute burglary.” State v. Dominguez-Meraz, No. 30,832, mem. op. *1 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2010) (non-precedential). Relying on previous cases later criticized and overruled by our Supreme Court for expanding the nature of burglary,7 we again held that “ ‘en-try’ in the criminal code requires only the slightest penetration of an interior space.” Sorrelhorse, 2011-NMCA-095, ¶ 7.{30} I disagree with the Majority’s assess-ment of Sorrelhorse as not “address[ing] the question presented here” because it concerns “the extent to which the defen-dant penetrated the prohibited space.” [Op. ¶ 16] Sorrelhorse specifically found “entry” into the “interior space” from the defendant’s foot being forced inside the door of an apartment and then forcing

7Reynolds, 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 37 (noting that any penetration of the interior space, however slight, is sufficient to constitute “entry” within the meaning of the burglary statute); State v. Tixier, 1976-NMCA-054, ¶ 11, 89 N.M. 297, 551 P.2d 987 (holding that evidence that an unidentified instrument penetrated one-half inch inside a building is enough to effectuate an entry under the bur-glary statute).



http://www.nmcompcomm.us/Advance Opinionsits occupants even farther back inside. Id. By holding “entry” to be into truly interior space, Sorrelhorse represents the direction we should follow. Who can dispute that the defendant “entered” the prohibited space by crossing the threshold of the apartment? Reynolds was implicitly overruled by Muqqddin not on the extent of penetration, which was a hand’s depth, but through questions about the validity of what constituted a prohibited structure and because the Legislature did not define a vehicle by its parts. Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, ¶¶ 22, 37. For this reason, incorporating a boundary that resembles Texas’s “any part thereof ” should be avoided.{31} The Supreme Court skeptically recognized that some states include parts of “almost anything” in burglary statutes involving vehicles, but chose to “disagree with the notion that any penetration of a vehicle’s perimeter constitutes a penetra-tion of the vehicle itself.” Id. ¶ 46. Valencia and Nible, relied upon by the Majority in this case, mirror our previous criticized cases when they “show [that] the require-ment of entry is not difficult to satisfy; the slightest penetration will suffice.”8 Magness v. Super. Ct., 278 P.3d 259, 263 (Cal. 2012) (construing Valencia and Nible). Magness specifically operates under that boundary but, in Valencia, the defendant damaged the window behind the screen in his at-tempt to open it. The California Supreme Court in Magness made the “observation that no burglary would have occurred in Valencia . . . had the defendant removed the window screen but not penetrated into the area behind it[.] Magness, 278 P.3d at 265. Wrapping fingers around the screen’s frame alone may not be sufficient penetra-tion under Magness. On the issue of what constitutes entry, Magness is construction of Valencia. “In sum, something that is outside must go inside for an entry to oc-cur.” Id. at 264. I am not convinced that Valencia’s and Nible’s path is persuasive.{32} The expansion of the nature of structures that could be burgled resulted in our Court’s having “gone astray” from the intent of both the common law and statu-tory roots of burglary according to our Supreme Court. We were thus criticized for creating a crime that enhanced “any crime committed in any type of structure or vehicle, as opposed to . . . punishment for a harmful entry.” Muqqddin, 2012-

NMSC-029, ¶ 3. We might do well to follow the Iowa Supreme Court, which restrained itself from enlarging the inclu-sion of curtilage, including front stoops and driveways into the definition of “oc-cupied structure” because the legislature had not previously done so, stating: “We do not construe statutes so as to render a part of it superfluous, but presume our leg-islature included every part of the statute for a purpose and intended each part to be given effect.” State v. Pace, 602 N.W.2d 764, 771 (Iowa 1999). Iowa sets a better example for us than California. The facts should fit the law. The law should not move to encompass the facts. From the progres-sion through our vehicular burglary cases, I conclude that “entry” is not penetration of a perimeter to the slightest degree, and we should avoid expanding the protected area of a structure’s interior in the absence of legislative direction.The Fact That Defendant’s Conduct Is Adequately Proscribed By Other Statutes Should Also Require Our Forebearance{33} Muqqddin also cautions us against blurring the line between similar, but different, offenses with such expansions. 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 50. It pointed out that the act of perforating a gas tank for its con-tents was more likely the misdemeanor of tampering with a motor vehicle. Id. ¶ 51.{34} Burglary traditionally entailed a home invasion, and the crime has evolved to “protect occupants against the terror and violence that can occur as a result of such an entry.” Id. ¶ 3. The privacy interest protected by burglary statutes is related to the terror of having an intruder inside of one’s home, into which the entry is fully accomplished. This Opinion recognizes this privacy interest and that Stamper’s reaction to Defendant’s actions is squarely within these senses of invasion, terror, and concern for possible personal violence that the burglary statute is designed to ad-dress. It is there the degree of “entry” falls short. [Op. ¶¶ 3, 10]. Certainly, Defendant attempted an entry. But, the California Supreme Court stated, more specifically, “[t]he laws are primarily designed, then, not to deter the trespass and the intended crime, which are prohibited by other laws, so much as to forestall the germination of a situation dangerous to personal safety.” Magness, 278 P.3d at 261 (internal quota-tion marks and citation omitted). This case falls short of that standard. Breaking and

entering differs from burglary because it protects a lesser interest than burglary, characterized by its inclusion in Article 14 of Chapter 30 of our statutes entitled “Trespass.” Muqqddin counsels us to have a disinclination to expand a statute when others are adequate to the purpose at hand. 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 40 (distinguishing burglary as protecting rights that exist beyond “other laws” intended to deter trespass and theft). Attempt is the taking an act in furtherance of an intention to commit a crime. NMSA 1978, § 30-28-1 (1963). Defendant did not complete the act of entry and, given his likely intent and location of his crime, it is attempted bur-glary, not breaking and entering, that ac-counts for what the Majority says protects a heightened interest against “invasion of privacy” and security to justify their new boundary. [Op. ¶ 10]. If the Majority fol-lows the conservative approach given us by Muqqddin, then Defendant here should be criminally responsible for attempted residential burglary or, perhaps, attempted breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and criminal damage. The distinction is notable, and the existing criminal statutes are fully adequate as written.Defining New Ambiguous Structures Damages the Plain Meaning of “Entry”{35} The Majority concedes that the “any part of ” a structure language in the breaking and entering statute ap-plies to the “breaking” portion of the statute and not the “entry.” [Op. ¶ 9]. The Opinion seems desirous of now extending “entry” to any penetration of “some sort of enclosure.” [Op. ¶ 11]. To do so successfully requires steps not yet legislated: (1) “structure” (protected space) must be further defined by its outermost perimeter; and (2) entry must be found either as a breaking of a perim-eter, however slight, without clear entry of protected interior space, or an actual crossing of the threshold to be present inside of the structure. In Muqqddin, our Supreme Court rejected judicial approach equating entry into “any por-tion” of a structure with entry into the structure itself. 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 38. Thus, I urge that the Majority’s holding inappropriately expands the protected area to “any portion” rather than the interior of the structure by its holding that breaking the outer perimeter and, no more, constituted “entry.”

8In subsequent cases in California, even this has been expanded to support a conviction in which a screen was cut from its frame without any further entry. People v. Hedgecock, D065977, 2015 WL 570299, at **2-3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (unreported case).



http://www.nmcompcomm.us/Advance Opinions{36} Muqqddin also cautions us that the plain meaning rule applies to keep the word “entry” free of expansion by expand-ing those things that might be entered, since the Legislature’s existing statutes work without doing so, and judicial re-straint forecloses our meddling in such an instance. Id. ¶ 38. Our Supreme Court rejected law from other jurisdictions, in-cluding Texas, that allow entry to be found when “the defendant crosses some imagi-nary plane” and concluded that “the con-cept of an imaginary plane is ambiguous, creating more questions than it answers and [is] subject to prosecutorial abuse.” Id. ¶¶ 46, 47. Our Supreme Court had no problem, however, finding that entry could be accomplished “through an open window.” Id. ¶ 48. The Opinion in this case consequently begs more questions than it answers. Muqqddin criticized including in “entry” the acts of passing a hand over a flatbed truck to break the plane of its outer edge and stealing a shutter attached to a house that required no entry, but was within the line between eaves and founda-tion to therefore “break[] the close.” Id. ¶ 47. Here, the Opinion concludes that “the plain language of the breaking and entering statute sheds little 1ight on the Legislature’s intent as to the issue before us[.] . . . [W]hether the space between a window screen and an open window is protected space” under the statute. [Op. ¶ 9]. State v. Kindred, based on Arizona’s statute that includes the plane of a build-ing’s outer perimeter, acknowledged that their statute “differs in several ways from the common law[.]” 307 P.3d 1038, 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). The Kindred Court also commented that it had found “no authority . . . expressly discussing whether that threshold has any particular depth and . . . whether entry into the threshold, without more, constitutes entry into the structure.” Id. The Arizona legislature made the threshold a plane and required no further entry than crossing it.{37} Our Legislature is as apt as any in Texas and Arizona to expand what our Supreme Court counsels us should be left to them alone. In an example from Mag-ness of how parsing “entry” can beggar

judicial interpretation, an intruder who approached and opened an unlocked slid-ing glass door on a house’s patio would displace air inside, but unless a part of him or something he carried “crossed the door’s threshold,” no burglary would oc-cur. 278 P.3d at 264. He could be “charged with attempted burglary, but not with a completed burglary.” Id. The case was silent about the effect if the door handle were within the outer perimeter of the door frame, or a finger was inside the outer edge of the door, but not inside the full width of the threshold. Such parsing is best not reserved by courts. 2012-NMSC-029, ¶ 47. Because Defendant did not enter Stamper’s house, he is, depending on what might be proven of his intent, guilty of no more than an attempt to commit either breaking and entering or burglary, along with the other crimes he most certainly committed, involving trespass or vandalism.The Case Law Does Not Follow Valencia and Nible{38} I also conclude that Muqqddin’s citation to Valencia and Nible was for, as it stated, no more than pointing out that a structure’s composition relates to an expec-tation of privacy. Nowhere did Muqqddin attempt to expand that space using these cases, and the remainder of the Supreme Court’s discussion, I believe, favors my view. The Majority places reliance on Va-lencia, in which the California Supreme Court concluded that, because a window screen is part of the outer boundary of a building, the area behind the window screen is inside the premises, and entry that is just barely inside the premises is suf-ficient.9 Valencia has been cited only three times by other states—Colorado, Hawaii, and Nevada—none of which utilize its holding expanding boundaries to outside perimeters. Colorado used Valencia in People v. Gonyea,10 where the defendant reached through the broken window to open a door. In Hawaii, where no statutory definition of “entry” existed, the Supreme Court vacated a conviction for the lack of its definition in a jury instruction. Valen-cia was mentioned only in the context of whether a stream of mace an angry father sprayed into a car over the threshold of the

car’s window constituted a felonious “en-try.”11 In Nevada, Valencia was mentioned by way of evaluating probable cause for a charge based on circumstantial evidence. Jones v. State, 238 P.3d 827 (Nev. 2008). The older Nible case has been mentioned in other states for other propositions than en-try past the outermost perimeter. In Colo-rado, mentioned above, and Ohio, where the boundary issue was mentioned, there was actual insertion of the defendant’s arm through a window. State v. McIntosh, 549 N.E.2d 1191 (Ohio 1990). Burke, from Massachusetts, is squarely with Valencia. Other cases are not nearly as supportive.{39} Chappell, cited by the Majority, in-volved the defendant reaching through the screen to raise the window inside. [Op. ¶ 15] Kindred depends on Arizona’s specific statute and found no other authority for the boundary it supported. The Major-ity, citing two of the cases footnoted in Valencia, is also unavailing. Barrick stated that the defendant rattling doors was no entry, but that he would have been guilty of attempted burglary if Indiana had such a statute. 119 N.E.2d at 553. Gatewood actu-ally held that the defendant’s full entry into an enclosed porch attached to the house and the space between the screen door and the inner door were both a sufficient entry into the dwelling proper. 221 P.2d at 394.{40} Many other states have not expand-ed boundaries outward. Iowa and Hawaii, mentioned above, declined to undertake a judicial expansion of their statute. Most states seem to depend on crossing a “threshold” to find entry. Charles E. Tor-cia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 322 (15th ed. 2014) (“There is an entry when any part of the defendant’s person passes the line of the threshold.”). Many states have determined that passing the “line of the threshold” with all or part of the body into the interior perimeter of the structure is entry by the defendant. See State v. Liberty, 280 A.2d 805, 808 (Me. 1971) (requiring “intrusion into the building of any part of the body”); Price v. Commonwealth, 112 S.W. 855, 855 (Ky. Ct. App. 1908) (hold-ing that breaking without entry, however slight, is not burglary); State v. Peterson, 881 P.2d 965, 969 (Utah Ct. App. 1994)

9Valencia itself frequently conflated breaking with entering in its review of precedent. Many cases cited in Valencia, as support-ing the view that penetration of a screen without entering the window behind it are not particularly apposite, since the defendants in Bowers, Gatewood, Jenkins, and Conners involved actual entry by the defendant of the inside of the structure. Ortega and Woods relied on Texas’s “any portion” statute. Crease was on point, while Mazer inferred intent from cutting a screen, but entry was not mentioned. 10195 P.3d 1171, 1174 (Colo. App. 2008). 11State v. Faria, 60 P.3d 333, 340 (Haw. 2002).



http://www.nmcompcomm.us/Advance Opinions(“A simple passage by any part of the body over the door’s threshold can amount to entry[.]”). Intrusion into the building is required in New Jersey, Missouri, Florida, Louisiana, Illinois, Alabama, and North Carolina. See State v. O’Leary, 107 A.2d 13, 15 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1954); State v. Pigques, 310 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Mo. 1958) (“Liter-ally, ‘entry’ is the act of going into the place after a breach has been effected[.]”); Miller v. State, 187 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966); State v. Conner, 2008-0473 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/1/08); 996 So. 2d 564, 568 (holding that “entry” requires passing the line of the threshold and “intrud[ing], even momentarily, into the structure”); People v. Davis, 279 N.E.2d 179, 181 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972) (requiring “intru[sion] into the building”); State v. McCall, 4 Ala. 643 (Ala. 1843) (holding that reaching through shutters but not the window within was not “entry”); State v. Watkins, 720 S.E.2d 844, 850 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that no entry inside residence when only instrument that broke window crossed threshold to be “inside the residence”).

CONCLUSION{41} I conclude that Defendant’s actions did not sufficiently “enter” Stamper’s house for purposes of breaking and entering. I believe that his conduct is adequately covered by other statutes and that the cause of justice would not suffer if he were convicted of the proper crime(s). Breaking and entering and attempted residential burglary are fourth-degree felonies; the legislated punishment is the same for both.12 Attempted breaking and entering together with criminal trespass and criminal damage to the screen would be an adequate combination to accurately punish him. When facts fit snugly within existing statutes, bending another statute to fit stretches the law’s reach past its legis-lative intent. Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029. ¶¶ 50-51.{42} I would prefer that this Court de-cline to expand the extent of protected spaces. The Majority concludes early on that the language of the statute does little to help us divine legislative intent regard-ing whether the space between the screen

and window is prohibited space. [Op. ¶ 9]. The Opinion recognizes that our statute does not state that entry into “any part of a structure will suffice.” [Id.] There is no “plain meaning” in our statute to define the space protected from “entry” and that ambiguity requires our exercising the rule of lenity to Defendant’s benefit in this case. Our previous attempts to expand the reach of protected space have been criticized. Granted, California and Massachusetts in Valencia and Burke have held in accord with where this Opinion takes us. Kindred is based upon the Arizona statute already distinguished from ours, but bases the crime on intruding into a boundary, as op-posed to a structure, which I would regard as just the position we took in Rodriguez that was rejected by our Supreme Court in Muqqddin. Other out of state cases cited by the Majority are not so illuminating. I would prefer, in light of Muqqddin, to wait for it to come from somewhere else.{43} I therefore most respectfully dissent.

RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge

12Section 30-14-8(B) (stating that breaking and entering is a fourth-degree felony); § 30-16-3(A) (stating that burglary of a dwell-ing is a third-degree felony); § 30-28-1(C) (attempting to commit a third-degree felony is a fourth-degree felony).



1474SF & 2278SF professional office space. Northeast views. Can develop to Tenant’s requirements.

1 office shared with 3 attorneys.

1 single office with shared conference room and wet bar.

Prime Uptown location. High visibility, convenient access to I-40; Bank of America and companion restaurants on-site: Shopping, extensive landscaping, ample parking, full-service lease.

6% commission to leasing office.

John Whisenant Ron [email protected] [email protected] 505-883-9662

New Space | Best Location “Build Out” Yourself

Comcast Business Class available at Uptown Square (includes High-Speed Internet, Telephone and Television).

Call for more information.

Uptown Square

Congratulations Young-Jun Roh!

2015 Recipient of the

Sandra Day O’Connor Awardfor

Professional Service

This Prestigious Award will be Presented at the 2015 American Inns of Court Celebration of Excellence at the Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C, on October 24, 2015.




Douglas M. BrownLitigation ConsultantDEAN EMERITUS · BANK CEO · TRUSTEE/BOARD MEMBER

AREAS OFEXPERTISE

Mr. Brown is available to assist attorneys in litigation consultation and expert testimony. Areas of expertise include commercial banking, marketing, corporate and non-profit governance, investment management, and higher education:

Corporate governance · Fiduciary duty · Bank regulation · Investment standards

Conflicts of interest · Risk management · Fiscal control · Marketing practices

www.expertbankingwitness.com | [email protected] | 505.277.6148

Douglas M. BrownLitigation ConsultantDEAN EMERITUS · BANK CEO · TRUSTEE/BOARD MEMBER

AREAS OFEXPERTISE

Mr. Brown is available to assist attorneys in litigation consultation and expert testimony. Areas of expertise include commercial banking, marketing, corporate and non-profit governance, investment management, and higher education:

Corporate governance · Fiduciary duty · Bank regulation · Investment standards

Conflicts of interest · Risk management · Fiscal control · Marketing practices

www.expertbankingwitness.com | [email protected] | 505.277.6148

Derek WeemsBoard CertifiedWC Specialist

Veronica DoratoAttorney at Law

Registered Nurse

Workers’ Compensation Attorneys

Gratefully AcceptingWorkers’ Compensation Referrals

www.doratoweems.com

Call us for an evaluation of your client’sWorkers’ Comp rights related to their injury claim

(505) 314-8880

Luckily, you could save right now withGEICO’S SPECIAL DISCOUNT.

MENTION YOUR STATE BAR OF NEW MEXICO MEMBERSHIP TO SAVE EVEN MORE.

Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. See geico.com for more details. GEICO and Affiliates. Washington DC 20076. GEICO Gecko image © 1999-2012. © 2012 GEICO.

Years of preparation come down to a couple days of testing and anxiety. Fortunately, there’s no studying required to save with a special discount from GEICO just for being a member of State Bar of New Mexico . Let your professional status help you save some money.

You spent years preparing for the Bar Exam...

geico.com/ bar / SBNM

http://www.expertbankingwitness.com


http://www.expertbankingwitness.com



http://www.doratoweems.com


OCTOBER 2015: The American Bar Association has dedicated an entire week in October to the “National Celebration of Pro Bono.” In New Mexico, the local Judicial District Court Pro Bono Committees have extended this celebration to span the entire month of October (and part of September). The committees are hosting a number of pro bono events across the state, including free legal fairs, clinics, recognition luncheons, Continuing Legal Education classes and more! To learn more about any of the events below, or to get involved with your local pro bono committee, please contact Aja Brooks at [email protected] or (505)797-6040. Thank you for your support of pro bono in New Mexico.

2nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT:Law-La-Palooza Free Legal FairOctober 22, 2015 from 3 – 6 PMCesar Chavez Community Center(7505 Kathryn Ave SE, Albuquerque, NM 87108)

6th JUDICIAL DISTRICT (LUNA):Free Legal FairOctober 23, 2015 from 10 AM – 1 PMLuna County District Court (855 S. Platinum, Deming, NM 88030)

9th JUDICIAL DISTRICT:Ask-A-Lawyer Free Legal Fair, Pro Bono Appreciation Luncheon, & CLEOctober 23, 2015 from 11:30 AM – 4:00 PMEastern New Mexico University (1500 S. Avenue K, Portales, NM 88130)CLE: “Restorative Justice from a Legal Aid Perspective” by Rafaela Herrera-Solorzano, Esq., Aaron Holloman, Esq. and Sarah Grew, Esq. (1.0 G)

12th JUDICIAL DISTRICT (LINCOLN):Free Legal FairOctober 24, 2015from 10 AM – 2 PMEastern New Mexico University- Ruidoso(709 Mechem Dr., Room 102Ruidoso, NM 88345)



PEIFER, HANSON & MULLINS, P.A.is pleased to announce that

CARTER B. HARRISON IVhas become an associate of the firm

Mr. Harrison practices White Collar Criminal Defense and Commercial Litigation.

20 FIRST PLAZA, SUITE 725 • ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102(505) 247-4800 • [email protected]

David StottsAttorney at Law

Business LitigationReal Estate Litigation

242-1933

A Civilized Approach to Civil Mediation

We facilitate communication and

promote understanding

Karen S. Mendenhall The Mendenhall Firm, P.C.

(505) 243-3357 [email protected]




NEIGHBORHOOD LAW CLE CONFERENCE

December 3-4, 2015 at the Santa Fe Convention Center

Featured Speakers:Supreme Court Justice Charles W. Daniels, and Court of Appeals Judge Linda M. Vanzi

10.0 General & 2.0 Ethics/Professionalism CLE credits

Tuition: $380 ($350 advance)

2015 Program and registration available at

www.sfnlc.com

Contact: [email protected]

or (505) 988-4575 ext. 106

Eric Ortiz & Associates is hiring!

Position: Associate Attorney PositionDescription: Eric Ortiz & Associates is seeking to hire an associate attorney for a firm with focus on civil litigation. Strong legal research and writing skills a must. Litigation experience preferred.

Please e-mail resume to [email protected]

or fax to (866) 897-9491

Salary: $55k - $75K per year plus bar dues, CLE fees and

malpractice insurance

Letherer InsuranceConsultants, Inc.

Representing 24 Insurance Companies

We solve Professional Liability Insurance ProblemsWe Shop, You Save.

New programs for small firms.

[email protected] • [email protected] • www.licnm.com

Don Letherer Brian Letherer

Caren I. Friedman

APPELLATE SPECIALIST

________________

505/466-6418

[email protected]

Walter M. DrewConstruc)on Defects Expert

40 years of experience

Construc)on-‐quality disputesbetween owners/contractors/ architects, slip and fall, buildinginspec)ons, code compliance,cost to repair, standard of care

(505) 982-‐[email protected]






http://www.licnm.com




WILLIAM A. SANCHEZRetired District Judge

Sanchez Settlement & Legal Services LLC(505) 720-1904 • [email protected] • www.sanchezsettled.com

Mediation, Settlement Facilitation, and Arbitration•

Over 21 years experience as a District Judge presiding over hundreds of civil jury and bench trials.

Special Master Services also available.

Offices in Albuquerque and Los Lunas

No need for another associateBespoke lawyering for a new millennium

THE BEZPALKO LAW FIRM Legal Research and Writing

(505) 341-9353 www.bezpalkolawfirm.com

(505) 988-2826 • [email protected]

MARIE SUSAN LEE, CPA MBA CFEMORNINGSTAR FORENSIC ACCOUNTING, LLC

FORENSIC ACCOUNTING(505) 235-‐3500 • [email protected]

www.morningstarcpa.com

Pen & PadFine Pens, Paper, Inks, Refills, Stationery, Leather . . .

8236 Menaul Blvd NE 293-1144(Hoffmantown Shopping Center)

ClassifiedPositions Litigator

The Albuquerque office of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP is seeking a talented and ambitious litigator with 6-10 years of experi-ence. The ideal candidate will have experience in a mid to large firm with a proven track record in legal research and drafting of plead-ings, memos, and briefs. Qualified candidates will have extensive experience running cases, taking and defending depositions, attending hearings, and making court appearances. Excellent academic performance, law journal or law review, strong writing and analytical skills, interpersonal skills and the ability to work in a team environment required. Please submit resume, transcripts, writing sample and professional references to Jamie Olberding, Attorney Recruiting Manager, at [email protected]. No search firms please.

AttorneyThe civil litigation firm of Atkinson, Thal & Baker, P.C. seeks an attorney with strong academic credentials and 2-10 years experi-ence for a successful, established complex commercial and tort litigation practice. Ex-cellent benefits. Tremendous opportunity for professional development. Salary D.O.E. All inquiries kept confidential. Send resume and writing sample to Atkinson, Thal & Baker, P.C., Attorney Recruiting, 201 Third Street NW, Suite 1850, Albuquerque, NM 87102.

Associate Attorney PositionHoffman Kelley Lopez, insurance defense firm with emphasis on Workers' Compensa-tion, is seeking an associate attorney to join our team. Applicant must be a graduate of an accredited law school and licensed in NM. Ideal candidate will be a highly motivated self-starter that possesses excellent oral and written communication skills, strong ana-lytical ability and can work independently. Deposition and/or courtroom experience is a plus. In state travel is required. Benefits available including health, dental and 401(k). Email resume, writing sample and references to [email protected] or fax to Hiring Partner at 800-787-9748.

Staff AttorneyThe Pueblo of Zia seeks attorney licensed to practice in NM. Applicants with up to 5 years prosecution, code drafting, or tribal govern-ment experience preferred. Will consider recent graduates. Email resume and salary requirements to [email protected]

Visit the State Bar of New Mexico’s website

www.nmbar.org


http://www.sanchezsettled.com

http://www.bezpalkolawfirm.com



http://www.morningstarcpa.com






Associate AttorneyWhitener Law Firm, P.A. is currently seek-ing a full-time associate attorney to handle Personal Injury cases. Candidates must be highly motivated, client oriented and will enjoy working in a fast-paced environment. Candidates must be licensed to practice in the state of New Mexico. Salary competi-tive and commensurate to experience and qualifications. Please send resume to Nichole Henry, Whitener Law Firm, P.A., 4110 Cut-ler Avenue, N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87110, fax to 505-242-3322 or e-mail to [email protected]

AssociateEstablished Albuquerque plaintiff personal injury and wrongful death litigation firm seeks associate for its growing statewide prac-tice. Ideal candidate should have minimum 2 years of personal injury litigation experi-ence. Taking/defending depositions and arbitration/trial experience required. Spanish speaking preferred but not required. Salary dependent on experience. Submit resume and writing samples to POB 92860, Albuquerque, NM 87199-2860. Attention Box A.

Prosecutor Position AvailableThe Twelfth Judicial District Attorney’s Office in Lincoln/Otero County, primarily based out of Alamogordo, has a job opening available for an Assistant Trial Attorney position. Job requirements, qualifications, skills, and other information pertaining to this position can be viewed at the New Mexico District Attor-neys' website at www.da.state.nm.us under personnel inquiries. Salary offered will be based on qualifications and experience and is consistent with the New Mexico District Attorney’s Association Pay and Compensa-tion Plan. Interested individuals should send a letter of interest and a resume to District Attorney, Diana A. Martwick, 1000 New York Ave., Room 101, Alamogordo, NM 88310 or [email protected] .

Two Senior Litigation AttorneysThe New Mexico Risk Management Division has an immediate position for two senior litigation attorneys in Santa Fe. The position requires a Juris Doctorate Degree and three or more years experience practicing law. The successful applicant must be licensed to practice law in New Mexico. The Risk Man-agement Division oversees litigation related to the tort claims act and civil rights claims involving state agencies and employees. Sal-ary depends on experience. Please submit resume to Christelle A. Sanchez at: [email protected] - The positions will remain open until filled but management will begin reviewing resumes upon receipt.

Chief of StaffThe New Mexico Public Regulation Com-mission (NMPRC) seeks a Chief of Staff -an “at will” position serving its Commissioners and staff - to provide administration of op-erations. Position reports to Commissioners. Position performs management functions and provides administrative oversight of agency mission and goals. Position provides counsel to Commissioners on operations. Other duties include: ensuring successful operation of agency divisions, directing ad-ministrative activities for agency divisions, providing oversight of agency budgets. Posi-tion analyzes and makes recommendations to Commissioners on legislative initiatives and represents Commissioners in legislative matters related to operation and regulatory authority of the agency. Position is respon-sible for final decisions in personnel matters, including discipline and hiring. Position attends open meetings and provides reports and recommendations to Commissioners on administrative matters. Position conducts meetings for daily operations of agency, ensures deadlines are met to comply with federal and state laws and rules and regula-tions related to daily operation of the agency. Position supervises Division Directors and a Management Analyst, and participates in committees, statewide outreach for Commis-sioners, and agency task forces. Bachelor’s degree in Business Management, Public Administration or related area required, and five (5) years of management experience in the public or private sectors. Experience may be substituted for education. The chosen candidate should foster a “teamwork” ap-proach and be able to interpret and enforce policies and procedures consistently. Salary: $75,418.52-$130,000 per year plus benefits. Salary based on education and experience. The State of NM is an EOE Employer. Ap-plicants may email or mail their resume to Jennifer Baca at [email protected], or mail to NMPRC Attn: Jennifer Baca, P.O. Box 1269, Santa Fe, NM 87504. Applicants should submit resumes prior to October 23, 2015. Questions may be directed to Jennifer Baca: 505-827-4433.

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) Legal Division Three PositionsLawyer- Advanced (Positions 6166, 6200 and 48051). Incumbent is responsible for provid-ing legal counsel to all PRC divisions in the regulation of utilities (electric, gas, telecom-munications, water, and sewer), transporta-tion (including common motor carriers, ambulance standards), and Pipeline Safety and State Fire Marshal’s Office. The Legal Division also represents PRC staff in proceed-ings before the Commission and provides counsel to the Commission in matters not involving advice on contested proceedings, including personnel and employment mat-ters. Salary ranges from: $44,782-$ 77,917. TO APPLY: please visit www.spo.state.nm.us by October 30, 2015. The State of NM is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Associate AttorneyChapman and Charlebois, P.C. is seeking an experienced insurance defense attorney to join our litigation team, providing legal analysis, representation and advice to local and national clients. Attorney must have 3+ years of insurance defense experience and be licensed in NM. Please submit resume and sal-ary requirements to: [email protected].

Lawyer-Advanced AttorneysLooking for a fast-paced, exciting career in state government? The New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD), Legal Ser-vices Bureau seeks three Lawyer-Advanced attorneys to assist TRD in the administra-tion of New Mexico’s state tax and related laws. Attorneys provide legal representation and counsel to the Department, including administrative and judicial proceedings to related state tax, motor vehicle law, and other litigation. Draft and review closing agree-ments, tax rulings and regulations. Provide legal advice regarding all tax programs and motor vehicle laws that the Department ad-ministers. Draft and review contracts, and review public requests. Attorneys present cases to the hearing officers, and district and appellant court judges. Attorneys will be directed by and report to the TRD Chief Legal Counsel. Position is located in Santa Fe. Position is a pay band 80, hourly salary range of $20.93/hr. to $37.20/hr. ($43,534.40/yr. to $77,376.00/yr.) Some travel may be required. The classified position requires the following qualifications: Law degree (JD) from an accredited law school, admission to the State Bar of New Mexico pursuant to 36-2-27 (NMSA 1978) or eligibility for a public employees limited license pursuant to Rule 15-301.1 (NMRA), and a minimum of five (5) years of legal practice. As a TRD employee, attorneys must be current with all tax reporting and payment, and have a valid NM driver’s license. For more information and to submit your application please go to the State Personnel website at www.SPO.state.nm.us. Recruitment will be ongoing until position is filled.

Associate AttorneyThe Jones Firm in Santa Fe is seeking an associate attorney with one to seven years’ experience to join our practice in the areas of labor and employment law, and commercial and personal injury litigation. We are looking for attorneys with excellent trial, research, and writing skills. The Jones Firm offers com-petitive compensation and benefits. Please provide a resume, references, and university and law school grade transcripts to [email protected] before November 13, 2015.

http://www.da.state.nm.us




http://www.spo.state.nm.us


http://www.SPO.state


Attorney WantedAlbuquerque AV-rated firm seeks highly expe-rienced insurance defense attorney with trial experience. Participation shareholder oppor-tunity. Send resume and references to Nathan H. Mann, Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C. by e-mail to [email protected].

Legal Assistant Position AvailableDowntown firm looking for experienced liti-gation legal assistant with preferred 3+ years experience. Must be proficient in Word and have strong typing and organizational skills. A positive attitude is a bonus. Knowledge of CM/ECF and Tylertech filing systems is highly encouraged. We offer benefits and 401K. Send resume, references or inquiries to [email protected].

ParalegalFT for Little, Gilman-Tepper & Batley, P.A. an AV rated Family Law firm in downtown Albuq. Duties include preparing pleadings, motions, responses, discovery and financial worksheets, maintaining files and calendars, case management, client relations and sup-port of attorneys. Experience with Word, Outlook, Excel and multi-tasking required. Great benefits. Email resume and letter of interest to [email protected]

County AttorneyBernalillo County is conducting a search of candidates for a County Attorney. Appointed by and reporting to the Board of County Commissioners is responsible for serving as legal counsel and adviser for Bernalillo County. Interested applicants must fill out an application online and submit a resume and letter of interest to County Manager, Julie Morgas Baca at the following address: One Civic Plaza NW, 10th Floor County Commis-sion/County Manager Suite, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102. Resumes and letters of interest may also be emailed to [email protected]. As the Court of Wills, Estates, and Probate Legal Assistant, he or she will answer telephone and e-mail, and respond accurately to requests for routine informa-tion about wills, estates and probate court procedures, including use of do-it-yourself court forms, and refer others to appropriate staff person. Docket Probate Court cases, including issuing receipts, process plead-ings, completing docket sheets, microfilm-ing pleadings, filing pleadings, issuing court letters, and process other related documents. Qualifications include requires a J.D. or L.L.B. degree from an accredited academic institution with a valid license to practice law in the State of New Mexico. Demonstrated “good standing” with the New Mexico State Supreme Court. Ten (10) years experience in the practice of law which includes litigation, appellate experience, and the coordination of multiple assignments relating to litiga-tion and advising clients on issues of legal compliance Bernalillo County invites you to consider working for our County as your next career endeavor. Bernalillo County is an equal opportunity employer, offering a great work environment, challenging career opportunities, professional training and competitive compensation. For more infor-mation regarding the job description, salary and closing dates visit the Bernalillo County web site at www.bernco.gov and refer to the section on job postings. ALL APPLICANTS MUST COMPLETE THE COUNTY EM-PLOYMENT APPLICATION.

Experienced Litigation ParalegalO’Friel and Levy, P.C., in Santa Fe, New Mexico is accepting resumes for an experi-enced civil litigation paralegal. Must have trial experience. Must be well organized and be able to work independently. Must be able to file electronically in state and federal court, and manage several attorneys’ calendars. Firm offers competitive salary. Please send resumes to [email protected] of the State Engineer/

Interstate Stream Commission (OSE/ISC) State of New MexicoThe New Mexico Litigation & Adjudication Program seeks two (2) attorneys to represent the OSE/ISC in federal & state court litiga-tion & at administrative hearings, water right adjudications and natural resources issues located in Santa Fe. Qualifications: Juris Doctorate from an accredited law school & no experience in the practice of law; member of the New Mexico State Bar. Lawyer – Basic: job id #2015-04773; Salary range - $35,381 to $61,568; Applications are being accepted by the State Personnel Office from 10/21/2015 – 10/30/2015. Please apply at www.spo.state.nm.us. The OSE/ISC is an Equal Opportunity Employer

AttorneysThe Law Office of J. Douglas Compton is seeking 2 Attorneys with a minimum of 1-5 years’ experience in personal injury litigation or 5 years’ litigation experience, to work in a busy insurance defense practice. Job require-ments include: A license to practice law in good standing in New Mexico and current on all CLE requirements; Experience, with auto, truck accidents, and uninsured, under-insured motorists’ cases; Demonstrated trial ability in the State of New Mexico is needed with experience in Bernalillo County Courts preferred; Must be able to travel to attend trials, arbitration, mediations and hearings; Attorney will defend lawsuits against GEICO insureds and represent GEICO in UM/UIM suits in all courts of NM; Must be computer proficient and be able to use a keyboard and a mouse. Position is commensurate with experience. Please submit your application to Careers.geico.com.

Associate AttorneyGluth Law, LLC is currently seeking a full-time associate attorney to handle estate plan-ning, probate AND trust matters. Candidates must have excellent communication skills and enjoy working with people in a fast-paced environment. Candidates must be licensed to practice in the state of New Mexico and current on all CLE requirements. Salary is commensurate with experience and quali-fications. Please send resume to Gluth Law, LLC, 2455 E. Missouri, Ste. A, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001, fax to (575) 556-8446 or email to [email protected]

Legal Assistant- ParalegalLEGAL ASSISTANT- PARALEGAL wanted for Santa Fe Law Firm. Must have experience with litigation, real estate, and business mat-ters. Resumes: [email protected]

Services

Briefs, Research, Appeals —Leave the writing to me. Experienced, effec-tive, reasonable. [email protected] (505) 281 6797

O/G Title OpinionsExperienced, dual licensed NM/TX attorney seeks NM o/g title work. Fee split on contract. References available. [email protected]

Needing Assistance With Your Client’s Appeal? Former NM and AZ appellate clerk, licensed four states. Examples available. Co-counsel, consulting, key trial motions/preservation. Mike. 575-202-6141, [email protected].




http://www.bernco.gov


http://www.spo.state






Office Space

Law Office Located Near Courthouses1500 Mountain Road NW. Share space with four other seasoned individual attorneys. Rent includes all utilities (except phone), share fax, copier, conference room, kitchen, secretarial space, maintenance, security system, ample parking. Built for law offices. $410.00/month. Call (505) 400-5515

For Sale 823 Gold Avenue SW Former law office, close to courthouses. Plenty of free street parking. 2075 SF plus basement & garage. New paint inside and out. Floors combination wood and carpet - all new throughout. Could be live/work. Floor plan & photos available. Asking $289,000. Liska Maddox, Maddox & Co. REALTORS, 505-270-5798 or [email protected] .

Professional OfficesProfessional offices in 22-story Albuquerque Plaza office tower adjacent to the Hyatt. Plaza500 executive offices include covered parking, VoIP phone with phone line, high-speed internet, free WiFi, conference rooms, professional reception service, copy and fax machine, and nightly janitorial service. Located at 201 3rd Street NW, Suite 500. Contact Sandee at 505-999-1726 or [email protected].

620 Roma N.W.620 ROMA N.W., located within two blocks of the three downtown courts. Rent includes utilities (except phones), fax, internet, janito-rial service, copy machine, etc. All of this is included in the rent of $550 per month. Up to three offices are available to choose from and you’ll also have access to five conference rooms, a large waiting area, access to full library, receptionist to greet clients and take calls. Call 243-3751 for appointment to inspect.

Ideal Albuquerque Downtown Office1-3 Executive Office Suites available. Located near all courthouses. Updated professional offices with outdoor green space. Reception-ist, parking, utilities, use of two conference rooms, and telephones w/voicemail included. Enjoy our congenial environment and quiet setting in the heart of downtown. Call today for more information or to make an appoint-ment. (505) 842-1905

Furnished Office Spaces AvailableUp-scale, full-service offices available! All-inclusive amenities: Furnished offices, Con-ference room, Receptionist, Internet, Phone, and Kitchen. Monthly rent, including support services ranging from $800-$1,200 a month. Convenient location with a five minute drive to the Courthouses. Call (505) 225-3730 if interested!

Abbreviated Advertising ScheduleAdvertising for the Nov. 18, 2015,

Bar Bulletin must be submitted by Nov. 2.

Our offices will be closed on Nov. 11, 2015 in observance of Veterans Day.

For more advertising information, contact:Marcia C. Ulibarri at 505-797-6058 or

email [email protected]



NMHC0226-0914

Affordable health plans

for all New Mexicans.

Simple, honest, affordable health insurance.

myNMHC.org

Now you can offer your employees affordable health insurance designed to give

them the care they need to stay healthy. For refreshingly simple, really honest

health insurance, connect with us at mynmhc.org.

REAL. DIFFERENT. HEALTH INSURANCE.

october 21, 2015 • volume 54, no. 42 · 4 bar bulletin - october 21, 2015 - volume 54, no. 42....

Documents