State v. Tafoya

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: September 2, 2021

No. S-1-SC-37872

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Petitioner,

v.

LAWRENCE TAFOYA,

Defendant-Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
Cindy M. Mercer, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Petitioner

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Steven James Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM

for Respondent

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER TO QUASH

BACON, Justice.

{1} WHEREAS, this matter having come before the Court upon the State’s appeal
from the Court of Appeals memorandum opinion in the matter of State v. Tafoya, A-1-
CA-34599, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. July 23, 2019) (nonprecedential), see Rule 12-502
NMRA;

{2} WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and being otherwise fully
informed on the issues and applicable law;
{3} WHEREAS, the district court sentenced Defendant-Respondent to twelve years
imprisonment and two years parole after a jury convicted Defendant-Respondent of
first-degree child abuse, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-6-1(E) (2005);

{4} WHEREAS, during sentencing, the district court initially failed to indicate whether
or not Defendant-Respondent committed a serious violent offense under NMSA 1978,
Section 31-18-15(F) (2007) and Section 33-2-34(L) (2006) but then issued an amended
judgment, sentence, and commitment, finding that Defendant-Respondent committed a
serious violent offense;

{5} WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
correct Defendant-Respondent’s sentencing order under Rule 5-801(A) NMRA (2009),
Tafoya, A-1-CA-34599, mem. op. ¶ 11;

{6} WHEREAS, Defendant-Respondent argues that the case is moot;

{7} WHEREAS, a case is moot when “‘no actual controversy exists,’ and the court
cannot grant ‘actual relief,’” Gunaji v. Macias, 2001-NMSC-028, ¶ 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31
P.3d 1008 (citation omitted);

{8} WHEREAS, this Court may still decide a moot case when the issue presents a
“substantial public interest” or is “capable of repetition yet evad[ing] review,” Id. ¶ 10;

{9} WHEREAS, this Court generally does not decide matters that are moot when an
exception does not apply, Id. ¶¶ 9-10;

{10} WHEREAS, this Court determines that at the time the case was submitted,
Defendant-Respondent had served his term of incarceration and term of parole such
that this Court cannot grant relief;

{11} WHEREAS, this Court determines that this case is moot because no actual
controversy exists and this Court cannot grant actual relief;

{12} WHEREAS, this Court determines that in the time since the district court
corrected Defendant-Respondent’s sentence, Rule 5-801 has been amended and no
longer provides for the correction of a sentence, Rule 5-801 (2014);

{13} WHEREAS, this Court determines that this case does not involve an issue that
presents a substantial public interest, nor is it capable of repetition yet evading review
because of the amendment to Rule 5-801;

{14} WHEREAS, this Court hereby exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(2)
NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion;

{15} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s petition for certiorari is
QUASHED as moot;
{16} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Court of Appeals Memorandum
Opinion, A-1-CA-34599, SHALL NOT be cited as persuasive authority.

{17} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

MELISSA A. KENNELLY, Judge
Sitting by designation