Legal Opinion
In re Christobal V.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided May 30, 2002No. 21,795PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CASTILLO, Judge.
{1} In this case we are asked to review the effect of Rule 10-230.1(B) NMRA 2002 on an order entered 132 days after the filing of a motion to reconsider a child’s disposition under the Children’s Code. Christobal V. (Child) was originally sentenced to the custody of the New Mexico Youth Authority (Authority) for a two-year commitment. Child timely filed a motion to reconsider. The matter was set for hearing 132 days after the motion was filed. At the hearing, the State moved to dismiss the motion to reconsider arguing that Rule 10 230.1(B) requires such motions to be…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Helman v. GallegosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
- Romero v. Dairyland InsuranceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Chavez-Rey v. MillerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. SantillanesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1981
- State v. SantillanesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1980
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In re Michael L.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2002
- United States v. SadlowskiCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
- State v. HortonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
- State, Children, Youth & Families Department v. Paul G.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2006
- State v. DiggsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.