State v. Begay

8 Citing cases

  1. Landau v. N.M. Attorney Gen. Office

    2019 NMCA 41 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times
    In Landau, this Court construed a conflict in the Personnel Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (1961, as amended through 2014) and NMSA 1978, Section 8-5-5 (1988), to determine whether the appellants fired by the newly elected attorney general, were "classified" employees entitled to protections under the Personnel Act or "exempt" employees not subject to those protections.

    After Appellants appealed their dismissals to the Board, Attorney General Balderas challenged the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Appellants are not employees covered by the Personnel Act. Appellants contend that Attorney General Balderas has the burden of demonstrating a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because he challenged the Board’s jurisdiction and cite State v. Begay, 1987-NMCA-025, ¶ 6, 105 N.M. 498, 734 P.2d 278 ("Demonstrating a lack of jurisdiction is [the] defendant’s burden."). We disagree.

  2. South v. Lujan

    2014 NMCA 109 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    In the complaint, Plaintiff states that the complained of "behavior [wa]s plead, alternatively, as within and without the scope of employment[.]" {14} More importantly given the burden of proof, Defendants' answer brief does no better in assisting the Court to resolve this issue. See State v. Begay, 1987-NMCA-025, ¶ 6, 105 N.M. 498, 734 P.2d 278 ("Demonstrating a lack of jurisdiction is [the] defendant's burden."). Defendants argue that "each [Defendant] was employed by the Pueblo in a managerial capacity and that the first two were acting in that capacity when . . . Plaintiff [was] discharged.")

  3. State v. Vandever

    292 P.3d 476 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that land owned in fee simple by the Navajo Nation was not a dependent Indian community because "[t]here was no evidence . . . to establish either that the federal government took some explicit action to designate the land as Indian country or that the federal government transferred the property to Indians for use by Indians"

    As the party who challenged the jurisdiction of the district court, Defendant has the burden of demonstrating a lack of jurisdiction. State v. Begay, 105 N.M. 498, 499, 734 P.2d 278, 279 (Ct.App.1987); State v. Cutnose, 87 N.M. 307, 309, 532 P.2d 896, 898 (Ct.App.1974). B. Location of Accident

  4. State v. Vandever

    Opinion Number: 2013-NMCA-002 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2012)

    As the party who challenged the jurisdiction of the district court, Defendant has the burden of demonstrating a lack of jurisdiction. State v. Begay, 105 N.M. 498, 499, 734 P.2d 278, 279 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Cutnose, 87 N.M. 307, 309, 532 P.2d 896, 898 (Ct. App. 1974). B. Location of Accident

  5. State v. Rivera

    133 N.M. 571 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times
    Applying comparable district court rule and stating that conditions of release "are separate, coercive powers of a court," and are "enforceable by immediate arrest, revocation, or modification if violated"

    Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is an issue that can be raised at any time by a criminal defendant. State v. Begay, 105 N.M. 498, 499, 734 P.2d 278, 279 (Ct.App. 1987). We must dismiss the district court's order of revocation if it had no jurisdiction to issue such an order.

  6. State v. Dawson

    127 N.M. 472 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that passive refusal to provide ID can constitute the offense of concealing identity

    A challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court may be raised at any time, including on appeal.See State v. Begay, 105 N.M. 498, 499, 734 P.2d 278, 279 (Ct.App. 1987). Defendant's argument, however, has nothing to do with the district court's jurisdiction.

  7. Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs

    116 N.M. 320 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that evidence supported the claim that the road in question was public because testimony showed the road had been used for recreational purposes, to drive cattle, sheep, and horses, and for use by the public when necessary or convenient since time immemorial

    However, the rule is otherwise when jurisdiction is involved."), nor conferred jurisdiction on the district court, see Chavez v. County of Valencia, 86 N.M. 205, 209, 521 P.2d 1154, 1158 (1974); State v. Begay, 105 N.M. 498, 499, 734 P.2d 278, 279 (Ct.App. 1987) (subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time), when it stipulated to the jurisdiction of the district court. Although neither party raises the issue of sovereign immunity on appeal, we nevertheless note that, even if we found that the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity, our jurisdictional analysis still would compel reversal of the district court on jurisdictional grounds.

  8. State v. Gammil

    108 N.M. 208 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 8 times

    The state also argues merger does not apply because the evidence establishes defendant first took the victim's purse and then threw her to the ground. See State v. Begay, 105 N.M. 498, 734 P.2d 278 (Ct.App. 1987) (no merger because one offense could be committed without committing the other and the two offenses involved required proof of different facts); State v. Williams, 105 N.M. 214, 730 P.2d 1196 (Ct.App. 1986) (no merger because different evidence required to prove the two offenses); State v. Muise, 103 N.M. 382, 707 P.2d 1192 (Ct. App. 1985) (different evidence used to prove the two offenses); State v. Singleton, 102 N.M. 66, 691 P.2d 67 (Ct.App. 1984) (same). However, the evidence in this case shows defendant committed the robbery and the aggravated battery by one act.