State v. Santillanes
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
HENDLEY, Judge.
The State appeals from an order of the district court striking the enhancement clause from the indictment and “the enhancement proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.” We proposed summary affirmance of the Court’s order on the basis that the notice required under the Controlled Substances Act for enhancement had not been provided to the defendant. § 30-31-20(B), N.M.S.A. 1978; State v. Rhodes, 76 N.M. 177, 413 P.2d 214 (1966); State v. Garduno, 93 N.M. 335, 600 P.2d 281 (1979). Except for the assertion of State’s counsel that oral notice was given the defendant, there…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Oyler v. BolesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Ex Parte LangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- State v. GunzelmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
- State Ex Rel. Hovey Concrete Products Co. v. MechemNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1957
- State v. GoodsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1950
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- State v. AhasteenNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
- State v. GonzalesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1990
- State v. GriffinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. RamzyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. ArmijoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.