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-38570
5 D-202-CR-2016-02961
7 FABIAN ELIAS GONZALES,
8 Defendant-Appellee.
9
10 ORDER AFFIRMING DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF STATE’S
11 MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION
12 This matter comes before the Court on the State’s expedited appeal, filed under
13 Rule 12-204 NMRA, from the district court’s order denying the State’s motion for
14 pretrial detention. The Court has reviewed the State’s motion, accompanying exhibits,
15 transcript of the November 6, 2019 hearing, and the parties’ district court filings
16 related to this matter. Having considered the same, as well as the applicable law, this
17 Court concludes that the district court’s decision to deny the State’s motion for
18 pretrial detention is supported by substantial evidence, is not arbitrary or capricious,
19 and is otherwise in accordance with the law. See Rule 12-204(D)(2)(b) (providing the
20 standard of review applied by appellate courts in reviewing pretrial detention
21 decisions); State v. Groves, 2018-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 24-25, 410 P.3d 193. We note, in
1 concluding that the district court did not err in determining that the State failed to
2 meet its burden under Rule 5-409(F)(4) NMRA, the district court properly considered
3 Defendant’s lack of felony convictions; the fact that Defendant’s past misdemeanor
4 charges occurred over a seventeen-year period; the strength of the State’s remaining
5 case against Defendant; and the fact that the State has dismissed all intentional violent
6 offenses with which Defendant had been originally charged, including murder,
7 criminal sexual penetration, and intentional child abuse.
8 Furthermore, to the extent the State seeks review of the district court’s decision
9 not to impose a monetary bond, the district court’s decision in this regard is not
10 properly before this Court on appeal. See Rule 5-405(A)(3)(b) NMRA (providing that
11 the “state may appeal if the district court has denied the prosecutor’s motion for
12 pretrial detention,” and recognizing a defendant’s limited ability to appeal a district
13 court order requiring a secured bond when the defendant continues to be detained as
14 a result of an inability to pay, but not identifying any right by the state to appeal a
15 district court’s refusal to set a monetary bond).
1 It is hereby ORDERED that the district court’s order denying the State’s
2 motion for pretrial detention is AFFIRMED.
____________________________________
s/ J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge
s/ M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
s/ BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge
Filed 11/25/2019 4:27 PM