From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Soto-Tavison

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Apr 18, 2013
NO. 32,002 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 32,002

04-18-2013

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO SOTO-TAVISON, Defendant, and DANIEL GOLDBERG, d/b/a GOODFELLAS BAIL BONDS, Surety-Appellant.

Gary K. King, Attorney General Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender Larry K. Bishop, Assistant Public Defender Hobbs, NM for Defendant Daniel Goldberg Farmington, NM Pro Se Surety-Appellant


This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Mark Terrence Sanchez, District Judge
Gary K. King, Attorney General
Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender
Larry K. Bishop, Assistant Public Defender
Hobbs, NM
for Defendant Daniel Goldberg
Farmington, NM
Pro Se Surety-Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KENNEDY, Chief Judge.

{1} Daniel Goldberg, d/b/a Goodfellas Bail Bonds (Surety) appeals pro se from the district court's amended judgment of default of conditions on bond, claiming that the district court abused its discretion in requiring Surety to pay $2,000 of a $3,000 bond when Defendant did not appear at the scheduled arraignment. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to reverse in light of the clear language set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 31-3-2(F) (1993). Surety filed a timely memorandum in support of our proposed disposition, and the State filed a notice indicating that it will not file a response in opposition. {2} Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we reverse the district court's order. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

RODERICK T. KENNEDY , Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

________________________
MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
________________________
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge


Summaries of

State v. Soto-Tavison

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Apr 18, 2013
NO. 32,002 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2013)
Case details for

State v. Soto-Tavison

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO SOTO-TAVISON…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Date published: Apr 18, 2013

Citations

NO. 32,002 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2013)