State v. Tomlinson

10 Citing cases

  1. Mathis v. State

    112 N.M. 744 (N.M. 1991)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that โ€œthe focus in determining prejudice is on whether the missing evidence is important and critical to the caseโ€

    Sanctions for not complying with discovery orders are discretionary with the trial court. State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 339, 648 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 98 N.M. 213, 647 P.2d 415 (1982). Although dismissal is an extreme sanction to be used only in exceptional cases, State v. Bartlett, 109 N.M. 679, 680, 789 P.2d 627, 628 (Ct.App. 1990), we find the ruling at issue not to be an abuse of discretion.

  2. State v. Apodaca

    482 P.3d 1224 (N.M. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    This Court has previously determined that, while a sentencing hearing is mandatory, it does not necessarily require a separate proceeding. State v. Tomlinson , 1982-NMCA-025, ยถยถ 11-15, 98 N.M. 337, 648 P.2d 795. Rather, "[a] hearing involves listening to facts and evidence for the sake of adjudication" and "includes every step where the judge is called to rule for or against a party to the cause." Id. ยถ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

  3. State v. Franklin

    413 P.3d 861 (N.M. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Reviewing an unpreserved equal protection claim under the general public interest exception

    The judge may alter the basic sentence ... upon ... a finding by the judge of any mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense or concerning the offender. See State v. Tomlinson , 1982-NMCA-025, ยถยถ 11-12, 98 N.M. 337, 648 P.2d 795 (holding that the use of the word "shall" in Section 31-18-15.1, the statute governing noncapital felonies and directing district courts to hold sentencing hearings, was intended to make a sentencing hearing mandatory to allow parties to provide mitigation evidence). Section 31-18-14 includes no such language.

  4. State v. Bonilla

    130 N.M. 1 (N.M. 2000)   Cited 37 times
    Vacating a defendant's sentence and holding that a judge's comments about a defendant's decision to proceed to trial warranted a remand to a different judge to avoid any appearance of impropriety

    {10} A sentencing hearing is mandatory. See State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 339, 648 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App. 1982). The sentencing judge must make a "careful, independent evaluation of defendant's rehabilitative potential."

  5. State v. Sanchez

    109 N.M. 313 (N.M. 1989)   Cited 20 times
    Holding no violation where the defendant acquiesced in delay due to plea bargain, which delay inured to his benefit

    We agree that Sanchez was not prejudiced by the State's delay in making disclosure of witnesses and of the photographs. The court's opinion in State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 339, 648 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 98 N.M. 213, 647 P.2d 415 (1982), accurately states the standard which is to be applied here. (V) ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE OF VENIRE

  6. Sunwest Bank of Clovis, N.A. v. Clovis

    106 N.M. 149 (N.M. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    The partnerships submit that rules of statutory construction dictate that the rule of Palmer remains unaffected by the Act absent an express statement by the legislature to the contrary. See Quintana v. New Mexico Dep't of Corrections, 100 N.M. 224, 668 P.2d 1101 (1983) (presumption that legislature did not intend to enact law that was inconsistent with existing law); Patterson v. Globe Am. Casualty Co., 101 N.M. 541, 685 P.2d 396 (Ct.App. 1984) (presumption extends not only to statutory law but to the common law); State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 648 P.2d 795 (Ct. App. 1982) (presumption also extends to judicial pronouncements). In conclusion, the partnerships submit that any rights of Sunwest Bank against the partnerships are through foreclosure actions and not summary judgment.

  7. State v. Gutierrez

    121 N.M. 191 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that the improper admission of BAC evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt

    Therefore, the district court was well within its discretion to reject dismissal, absent a showing that all other recourse was inadequate or unfair. See State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 339, 648 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 98 N.M. 213, 647 P.2d 415 (1982). 9. For the reasons stated, the decision of the district court is hereby affirmed in all respects.

  8. State ex rel. Stratton v. Roswell Schools

    111 N.M. 495 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that public school teachers and administrators are not state employees within the meaning of N.M. Stat. Ann. ยงยง 2-1-3 to -4

    The legislature is also presumed to have enacted statutes with knowledge of judicial pronouncements. State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 648 P.2d 795 (Ct.App. 1982). It follows that the legislators in the 1943 legislative session are presumed to have known both the constitutional and statutory distinctions between the state and its political subdivisions and the judicial decisions relating to those distinctions at the time of the enactment of Sections 2-1-3 and -4.

  9. State v. Bartlett

    109 N.M. 679 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 28 times
    Holding dismissal was not warranted

    Sanctions for violations of discovery orders are discretionary with the trial court. State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 648 P.2d 795 (Ct.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 98 N.M. 213, 647 P.2d 415 (1982). A defendant is not entitled to a dismissal or other sanctions upon a mere showing of violation of a discovery order.

  10. Matter of Kenny F

    109 N.M. 472 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 11 times
    Finding no reversible error where the plaintiff did not request a continuance despite claim that cross-examination of expert witness was impeded by alleged delayed disclosure of report

    Moreover, mother has failed to demonstrate how she was prejudiced by the Department's alleged failure to produce Dr. Caplan's report. See State v. Tomlinson, 98 N.M. 337, 648 P.2d 795 (Ct.App.), rev'd in part on other grounds, 98 N.M. 213, 647 P.2d 415 (1982). She claims an inability to cross-examine Dr. Caplan effectively with respect to the effect on Kenny of the sexual abuse committed against him by one of the other foster children in the home of the foster parents who hoped to adopt him.