The amended judgment of January 30th imposes the identical disposition. The child relies on State v. Doe, 91 N.M. 356, 573 P.2d 1211 (Ct.App. 1977) in support of his argument. Doe quotes State v. Verdugo, 78 N.M. 372, 431 P.2d 750 (1967), as follows: "`When a sentence has been set aside, the defendant's presence is as necessary at resentencing as it was at the time of the original sentencing.'"
Therefore, when a jurisdictional claim is raised, the issue must be decided before a court can review the case. See State v. Doe, 91 N.M. 356, 357, 573 P.2d 1211, 1212 (Ct.App. 1977) ("`[L]ack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings is a controlling consideration which must be resolved before going further and an appellate court may raise the question of jurisdiction on its own motion.'") (quoting In re Doe III, 87 N.M. 170, 171, 531 P.2d 218, 219 (Ct.App. 1975)). To the extent that Taos could be read to suggest otherwise, it should not be followed.
Several of our sister states follow the same procedure: Cline v. State, 571 So.2d 368 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Merry v. State, 752 P.2d 472 (Alaska App. 1988); State v. Fettis, 136 Ariz. 58, 664 P.2d 208 (1983); Lowery v. Arkansas, 297 Ark. 47, 759 S.W.2d 545 (1988); Hooks v. State, 429 A.2d 1312 (Del.Supr. 1981); Warrick v. United States, 551 A.2d 1332 (D.C. 1988); State v. Caraballo, 62 Haw. 309, 615 P.2d 91 (1980); State v. Webb, 242 Kan. 519, 748 P.2d 875 (1988); State v. Money, 109 Idaho 757, 710 P.2d 667 (1985); State v. Johnson, 222 N.W.2d 453 (Iowa 1974); Greenidge v. Greenidge, 571 So.2d 905 (La.App. 1990); Collins v. State, 69 Md. App. 173, 516 A.2d 1015 (1986); People v. Freybler, 173 Mich. App. 539, 434 N.W.2d 187 (1988); State v. Cooper, 712 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App. 1986); State v. Doe, 91 N.M. 356, 573 P.2d 1211 (1977); State v. Walton, 66 Ohio App.3d 243, 583 N.E.2d 1106 (1990); State v. Verdugo, 78 N.M. 372, 431 P.2d 750 (1967); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991); Casias v. State, 503 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973); State v. Germaine, 152 Vt. 106, 564 A.2d 604 (1989); Head v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 163, 348 S.E.2d 423 (1986); State v. Barefield, 47 Wn. App. 444, 735 P.2d 1339 (1987); State v. Eden, 163 W. Va. 370, 256 S.E.2d 868 (1979); Weddle v. State, 621 P.2d 231 (Wyo. 1980). Indeed, the requirement that the defendant be present at sentencing in Pennsylvania is plainly and clearly stated in Pa.R.Crim.P. 1117(a).
The order of remand simply returns the jurisdiction of the cause to the lower court in which it originated. See State v. Doe, 91 N.M. 356, 573 P.2d 1211 (Ct.App. 1977). In this case, the district court's order of dismissal was, in effect, an affirmance of the magistrate court judgment.
{41} Although Synergy does not actually argue the issue of subject matter jurisdiction on appeal, we posed this question to the parties during oral argument. Jurisdiction is a controlling consideration to be resolved as a preliminary matter, and an appellate court may raise the question of jurisdiction on its own. See State v. Doe, 91 N.M. 356, 357, 573 P.2d 1211, 1212 (Ct. App. 1977). Moreover, "it is incumbent upon the appellate court to raise jurisdiction questions sua sponte when the Court notices them."
We answer this contention by first noting that jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time during the pendency of a proceeding. See Sims v. Mechem, 72 N.M. 186, 382 P.2d 183 (1963); State v. Doe, 91 N.M. 356, 573 P.2d 1211 (Ct.App. 1977). Secondly, since Section 3-21-8(B) provides for appeal by an "aggrieved person," the question of whether F W Enterprises has such standing is a jurisdictional question.
Indeed, this court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction on its own motion. State v. Doe, 91 N.M. 356, 573 P.2d 1211 (Ct.App. 1977). To the extent that petitioner's standing argument goes to the question of whether respondent is an aggrieved party, we find that she has a "pecuniary interest" affected by the 1985 order.