September 16, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Julian A. Martinez, No. A-1-CA-37798

Corrections to this opinion not affecting the outcome, at the Court’s discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM
Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-37798
5 JULIAN A. MARTINEZ,
6 Defendant-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCKINLEY COUNTY
8 Robert A. Aragon, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellant
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 Charles D. Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellee
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VANZI, Judge.
18 {1} The opinion filed on September 10, 2019, was filed inadvertently and is hereby
19 withdrawn, and this opinion is filed in its stead. The State appeals from a district
20 court order granting Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and dismissing the
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 9/16/2019 8:54 AM

2
1 charges with prejudice. The order was entered three days after the jury had returned
2 a verdict finding Defendant guilty on two criminal counts. [RP 173, 176, 213] Our
3 calendar notice proposed to reverse. Defendant has responded with a memorandum
4 in opposition. We reverse.
5 {2} “A district court does not have the authority to override a jury’s verdict and
6 enter a verdict different than that handed down by the jury.” State v. Torrez, 2013-
7 NMSC-034, ¶ 10, 305 P.3d 944; see also Rule 5-701(A) NMRA (“If the defendant
8 is found guilty, a judgment of guilty shall be rendered. If the defendant has been
9 acquitted, a judgment of not guilty shall be rendered.”). Under such circumstances,
10 the State has a right to appeal and have the jury verdict reinstated. State v. Davis,
11 1982-NMCA-057, ¶ 3, 97 N.M. 745, 643 P.2d 614. Although the district court
12 attempted to relate its ruling back to Defendant’s pre-verdict motion, our Rules and
13 case law do not provide for such an exception to the mandatory applicability of the
14 verdict. Accordingly, our calendar notice proposed to reverse and remand for
15 sentencing pursuant to the jury verdict.
16 {3} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant challenges our case law on this
17 specific issue. However, we are bound by Torrez. See State ex rel. Martinez v. City
18 of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47 (stating that the
19 Court of Appeals is bound by Supreme Court precedent). We are also bound by Rule

3
1 5-701(A). See State v. Cordova, 1999-NMCA-144, ¶ 30, 128 N.M. 390, 993 P.2d 104
2 (“It is well-established that this Court is without authority to reverse or revise court
3 rules that have been previously interpreted by our Supreme Court.”). Accordingly, we
4 reverse.
5 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
8 WE CONCUR:
9 _________________________________
10 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge
11
12 MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge