Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Stephen F.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 21, 2005No. 24,007Published

1DissentCastillo, Judge

{29} I respectfully dissent. While I agree that Rule 10-229 of the Children’s Court Rules is the correct rule to use for the dispositional portion of this case, I do not agree that automatic dismissal is the sanction to be imposed when a dispositional hearing is not recommenced within forty-five days from entry of the order committing a child to a facility for diagnostic purposes.

{30} The majority relies on two bases for their holding that dismissal is the proper sanction. First, they look to the history of the rule; second, they interpret the language of the rule as necessarily including the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. RiveraNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Filimon Castillo Perez v. George E. Sullivan, Warden, and Attorney General, State of New MexicoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
  3. State v. TodiscoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. Board of Commissioners v. Las Cruces Sun-NewsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. In re Michael L.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2002

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API