This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 33,232 4 MARIA DE JESUS SALAZAR, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Ralph E. Trujillo, Assistant Attorney General 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16
MEMORANDUM OPINION 172 KENNEDY, Chief Judge. 1 {1} This case came before this Court pursu ant to the appeal by Maria De Jesus 2 Salazar (Defendant) of her convictions for acceptance of a bribe by a witness in 3 violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-24-3. 1 (1991), and for failure to report child 4 abuse and neglect in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-3 (2005). Our calendar 5 notice proposed to affirm issues relating to Defendant’s conviction for acceptance of 6 a bribe and to reverse her c onviction for failure to report child abuse and neglect based 7 on insufficient evidence. Subsequent to issuance of our notice, Defendant filed a 8 motion to withdraw her appeal. This C ourt in turn issued our December 10, 2013, 9 order, where we set forth our intention to grant Defendant’s motion to withdraw her 10 appeal and to remand for the limited purpose of vacating her convi ction for failure to 11 report child abuse and neglect. We allowed the parties twenty days to respond to our 12 order’s stated intention. The State filed a response, and Defendant did not. 13 {2} Having considered both Defendant’s moti on to withdraw her appeal and the 14 State’s response to our December 10, 2013, order, we sever Defendant ’s appeal of her 15 convictions. See generally Rule 12-401(B) NMRA (providi ng, in pertinent part, that 16 “[a]n appeal or other proceeding may be dismissed by the appellate court after motion 17 by the appellant or person instituting the proceeding, and upon such terms as are fixed 18 by the appellate court or agreed upon by the affected parties” (emphasis added)). As 193 to Defendant’s conviction for acceptance of a bribe, we grant her motion to withdraw 1 her appeal and, thereby, dismiss her appeal of this conviction. 2 {3} As to Defendant’s convicti on for failure to report, for the reasons provided in 3 our notice and as contemplated by our D ecember 10, 2013, order, we reverse this 4 conviction and remand to the di strict court with instructi ons to vacate this conviction. 5 In doing so, we rely onState v. Strauch , 2014-NMCA-020, 317 P.3d 878, cert. 6 granted , ____-NMCERT-___, ___ N.M. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 34, 435, Jan. 10, 7 2014), and conclude that Defe ndant was not subject to the reporting requirement in 8 Section 32A-4-3(A). We have considered the State’s response where the State 9 acknowledges “that it appears that . . . Strauch is dispositive of this case.” [response, 10 red clip/2] The State argues, however, that Strauchwas wrongly decided and, 11 thereby, urges this Court to reconsider its application of Strauch . [response, red 12 clip/2] Alternatively, the State requests that we hold this case in abeyance pending 13 the Supreme Court’s decision in Strauchon its certiorari review, or that we certify this 14 case to the Supreme Court to be consolidated with Strauch. [response, red clip/2] We 15 decline to take the State’s suggested approaches and instead rely on Strauchto reverse 16 and remand with regard to Defendant’s conviction for failure to report abuse and 17 neglect. See generally Gubransen v. Progressive Halcyon Ins. Co. , 2010-NMCA-082, 18 ¶ 13, 148 N.M. 585, 241 P.3d 183 (holding that a formal Court of Appeals opinion is 19controlling authority, even when the Ne w Mexico Supreme Court has granted 1 certiorari in the case). 2 {4} To conclude, we sever De fendant’s appeal of her convictions for acceptance of 3 a bribe by a witness and for failure to report child abuse or neglect. We grant 4 Defendant’s motion to withdraw her app eal for her conviction for acceptance of a 5 bribe by a witness and, thereby, dismiss her appeal of that c onviction. For the 6 remaining severed appeal, we reverse Defe ndant’s conviction fo r failure to report 7 abuse and neglect and remand with instructio ns for the district court to vacate this 8 conviction. 9 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

____________________ ________________ 11 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 12
WE CONCUR: 13

___________________________ 14 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 15

___________________________ 16 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 17