Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Wilson

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided May 25, 2001No. 21,279Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBustamante, Judge

{45} Believing that the majority misconstrues the core holding of Apprendi, I dissent. In light of this dissenting position on the issue of aggravating circumstances, I need not address Defendant’s second issue. I concur with the majority opinion with regard to Defendant’s issues concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the rebuttal witness.

{46} The majority frames the Apprendi issue correctly — that is, whether the “maximum sentence authorized by a jury’s verdict is the basic sentence prescribed by Section 31-18-15.” But then its analysis of Apprendi and our statutory scheme focuses…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Caristo v. SullivanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. RhodesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1966
  5. In re Christopher K.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API