Four Hills Community, LLC v. Tucker

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citation of unpublished decisions.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: June 17, 2024

No. S-1-SC-39821

FOUR HILLS COMMUNITY, LLC
d/b/a FOUR HILLS PRIVATE
COMMUNITY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SHERRY LYNN TUCKER,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

GLORIA H. NOVAK,

Defendant.

CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
Joshua A. Allison, District Judge

Sherry L. Tucker
Pro se
Edgewood, NM

for Appellant

Vance, Chavez & Associates, LLC
James A. Chavez
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REMAND
PER CURIAM.

{1} WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by the Court upon certification
order from the Court of Appeals, and the Court having considered the foregoing order
and being sufficiently advised, on March 27, 2023, held this matter in abeyance pending
this Court’s disposition in Padilla v. Torres, No. S-1-SC-35619, without deciding whether
to accept certification;

{2} WHEREAS, this Court issued an opinion in Padilla on February 5, 2024,
reversing and remanding that matter to the metropolitan court for a new trial, see Padilla
v. Torres, 2024-NMSC-007, ¶ 2, ___ P.3d ___;

{3} WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the certified question presented in this
matter is addressed by the Court’s opinion in Padilla;

{4} WHEREAS, the Court, therefore, exercises its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)
NMRA to dispose of this matter by nonprecedential order; and

{5} WHEREAS, the Court having considered the foregoing and being sufficiently
advised;

{6} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s March 27, 2023, order
holding this matter in abeyance is WITHDRAWN;

{7} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that certification is ACCEPTED; and

{8} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the metropolitan
court for a new trial in accordance with Padilla.

{9} IT IS SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice