Skip to main content

March v. State

Citations

  • 109 N.W. 110
  • 109 N.M. 110
  • 782 P.2d 82

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to enhance the defendant’s sentence because the earning of meritorious deductions had brought the defendant’s service of his sentence to an end
  • reasoning that sentencing implicates double jeopardy concerns if a defendant's objectively reasonable expectations of finality are violated
  • reasoning that sentencing implicates double jeopardy concerns if a defendant’s objectively reasonable expectations of finality are violated
  • “Sentencing may violate concepts of double jeopardy if not within objectively reasonable expectations of finality.”
  • prosecutor has discretion to seek or not to seek enhanced sentencing, despite mandatory language of statute
  • prosecutor has discretion to seek or not to seek enhanced sentencing, despite mandatory language of statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sosa, Ransom, Baca, Larrabee, Montgomery

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.