Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
Β§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Diaz

5 Citing cases

  1. Knotts v. Sanchez

    CV 14-239 JCH/WPL (D.N.M. Jan. 8, 2015)

    It cannot be appealed from and is subject to change until reduced to writing and filed with the clerk.State v. Diaz, 673 P.2d 501, 502 (N.M. 1983). As discussed above, the state district judge made and retracted the initial sentence of two-and-a-half years after Knotts signed the Plea Agreement. The sentence was not part of the Plea Agreement, and therefore raises a question of state law: namely, was the sentence lawfully imposed? The state district judge's oral pronouncement on June 4, 2012, did not constitute a final judgment and could be changed at any time before the entry of written judgment.

  2. Salaz v. Snedeker

    CIV 04-127 WJ/KBM (D.N.M. Oct. 25, 2004)

    Under New Mexico law, an "oral pronouncement is not a final judgment and is subject to change until reduced to writing." State v. Rushing, 103 N.M. 333, 334, 706 P.2d 875, 876 (N.M.App.) (citing State v. Diaz, 100 N.M. 524, 673 P.2d 501 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1016 (1984)), cert. denied, 103 N.M. 344, 707 P.2d 552 (1985). As of December 1, 2000, Judge Mark Maracon was assigned both of the cases.

  3. State v. Ballard

    2012 NMCA 43 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ballard, this Court considered whether the defendant's conviction for twenty-five counts of possession of child pornography violated double jeopardy.

    We see no basis on which to conclude that the district court abused its discretion. See State v. Diaz, 100 N.M. 524, 525, 673 P.2d 501, 502 (1983); State v. Rushing, 103 N.M. 333, 335, 706 P.2d 875, 877 (Ct.App.1985). CONCLUSION

  4. State v. Ballard

    Opinion Number: 2012-NMCA-043 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2012)

    We see no basis on which to conclude that the district court abused its discretion. See State v. Diaz, 100 N.M. 524, 525, 673 P.2d 501, 502 (1983); State v. Rushing, 103 N.M. 333, 335, 706 P.2d 875, 877 (Ct. App. 1985). CONCLUSION

  5. State v. Brown

    135 N.M. 291 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times
    In State v. Brown, 135 N.M. 291, 87 P.3d 1073, 1086 (Ct.App. 2004) (Vigil, J., dissenting), addressing an issue much like that which this Court is confronting, Judge Vigil advanced, as one ground for his dissent, the strong policy of New Mexico to encourage pro bono services.

    State v. House, 2001-NMCA-011, ΒΆ 10, 130 N.M. 418, 25 P.3d 257. In contrast, while a matter is pending before the district court, a district court may change its mind at any time prior to entry of the final ruling. State v. Diaz, 100 N.M. 524, 525, 673 P.2d 501, 502 (1983); State v. Doe, 99 N.M. 460, 463, 659 P.2d 912, 915 (Ct.App. 1983). Thus, the fact that the trial court initially entered a stipulated order allowing Brown access to "all services" did not preclude it from reversing that ruling upon full briefing and argument when the matter was later contested.