Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Gonzales

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided May 9, 2001No. 20,998Published

1ConcurrenceBustamante, Judge

(specially concurring).

{51} I agree with the majority that affirmance is appropriate. However, I would take the opportunity to finally determine the standard of proof required to establish that a youthful offender is not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation. I concur in the result the majority has reached as to the Apprendi issue, though I cannot agree with most of the analysis which produces it.

STANDARD OF PROOF

{52} The majority declines to decide which standard of proof is appropriate for the amenability finding. I agree that the two provisions Defendant relies upon in the juvenile code…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. United States v. RaddatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

11 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