State v. Chavez

Full title: STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW CHAVEZ…

Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Date published: Nov 30, 2021

No. A-1-CA-37344 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2021)

Opinion

A-1-CA-37344

11-30-2021

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATTHEW CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant

ZACHARY A. IVES, JUDGE

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY ALISA A. HART, DISTRICT JUDGE

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM for Appellant

DECISION

ZACHARY A. IVES, JUDGE

{¶1} At the outset of this appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice because his trial occurred outside of the 180-day period generally prescribed by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) and because there was not good cause for a continuance. See generally NMSA 1978, § 31-5-12, art. 3(A) (1971) (requiring that trial be held within 180 days unless a continuance is granted); § 31-5-12, art. 5(C) (providing that the remedy for a speedy trial violation is dismissal with prejudice). After briefing was complete, we remanded this case to the district court so that it could explain its reasons for denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. In light of the district court's explanation, Defendant now concedes that the district court did not err because Defendant, through his counsel, "effectively waived" his right to a speedy trial. Although we are not bound by Defendant's concession, State v. Harrison, 2010-NMSC-038, ¶ 15, 148 N.M. 500, 238 P.3d 869, we accept it because our independent review reveals no reason to reject it. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss. Because Defendant makes no other claim of error in this appeal, we affirm his robbery conviction.

{¶2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge