1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please
2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.
3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated
4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does
5 not include the filing date.
6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
8 Plaintiff-Appellant,
9 v. No. 30,275
10 MICHAEL GARCIA,
11 Defendant-Appellee.
12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY
13 William A. Sanchez, District Judge
14 Gary K. King, Attorney General
15 Santa Fe, NM
16 for Appellant
17 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender
18 J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender
19 Santa Fe, NM
20 for Appellee
21 MEMORANDUM OPINION
22 SUTIN, Judge.
23 The State appeals from the order dismissing charges against Defendant based
24 on pre-indictment delay and speedy trial violations. We issued a calendar notice
1 proposing to reverse the district court order, and we have received a memorandum in
2 opposition from Defendant. We have considered Defendant’s arguments, but we are
3 not persuaded that reversal is not the correct disposition in this case. We therefore
4 reverse.
5 In our calendar notice, we proposed to hold that the triggering date for speedy
6 trial purposes was, at the earliest, August 20, 2009, the date that Defendant was
7 indicted in district court. We explained that, although charges had been previously
8 filed against Defendant in magistrate court and then dropped, there was nothing to
9 show that the dismissal of the charges was for tactical reasons or for reasons that
10 constituted bad faith. See State v. Hill, 2005-NMCA-143, ¶ 12, 138 N.M. 693, 125
11 P.3d 1175 (stating that speedy trial concerns are not triggered when charges are
12 dismissed, the defendant is released from custody, and charges are refiled at a later
13 date so long as the charges are dropped in good faith). The time period from August
14 20, 2009, to the date that Defendant filed his motion to dismiss on February 17, 2010,
15 amounted to less than six months. Therefore, the length of delay was not
16 presumptively prejudicial, and there is no need to inquire into the remaining speedy
17 trial factors. See State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶¶ 21, 47, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d
18 387. We reverse the district court’s determination that Defendant’s speedy trial rights
19 were violated.
2
1 Defendant does not challenge our proposed disposition with regard to his
2 argument on pre-indictment delay. When a case is decided on the summary calendar,
3 an issue is deemed abandoned where a party fails to respond to the proposed
4 disposition of the issue. State v. Johnson, 107 N.M. 356, 358, 758 P.2d 306, 308 (Ct.
5 App. 1988). Therefore, we rely on our discussion in the calendar notice and reverse
6 on this issue.
7 For the reasons discussed in this opinion and those included in our calendar
8 notice, we reverse the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 __________________________________
11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
12 WE CONCUR:
13 _________________________________
14 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
15 _________________________________
16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
3