This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om 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-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 35,503 4 TANYA CARRILLO, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 7 Cindy M. Mercer, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 Steven Johnston, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 172 WECHSLER, Judge. 1 {1} The State appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendant Tanya 2 Carrillo’s motion to suppress her incrimin ating statements. We issued a calendar 3 notice proposing to affirm. The State filed a memorandum partially opposing our 4 proposed notice of disposition. After due c onsideration, we are not persuaded by the 5 State’s arguments and therefore affirm. 6 {2} In its docketing statement, the State ar gued that the district court erred in 7 suppressing Defendant’s statem ents because she heard the Miranda warnings shortly 8 before the beginning of her first interview with Officer Davis, and she understood her 9 rights as described in the warnings. [DS 3] In our calendar notice, we explained in 10 detail why we were not persua ded by this contention, and we proposed to affirm the 11 district court’s order suppressing evidence. [CN 3-4] In response to this Court’s 12 calendar notice, the State filed a memorandum, in which it states that it opposes our 13 notice of proposed disposition “only insofar as the [district court] order appears to 14 completely exclude Defendant ’s statements.” [MIO 1] 15 {3} The State acknowledges that the district court was not convinced that Defendant 16 was read her Miranda rights. [MIO 7] Additionally, the State concedes that the district 17 court did not err in suppre ssing “Defendant’s incriminating statements from the 18 State’s case in chief.” [MIO 7] However, th e State takes issue with the fact that the 193 district court’s order appears to exclude Defendant’s statements entirely. [MIO 8; see 1 RP 61 (stating that, because the district c ourt was not satisfied that Defendant was 2 read her Miranda rights, these statements are not admissible: “[a]ny statements made 3 by Defendant involving drug use or drug po ssession, to include drug paraphernalia” 4 and “[a]ny statements regarding where she obtains her drugs from”)] The State 5 contends that the order is t oo broad and that Defendant’s statements are admissible for 6 the purpose of impeachment if she testifies. [MIO 5-9] 7 {4} The State now asks this Court “to affirm the district court’s decision with the 8 clarification that Defendant’s statements are excluded only from the State’s case in 9 chief, or, in the alternative, to remand this case to the district court to make an initial 10 determination whether Defendant’s stat ements were voluntary and, therefore, 11 admissible for the purpose of impeachment .” [MIO 9] We will not address 12 hypothetical issues that could have no effect on the resolution of a case. See State v. 13 Ordunez , 2012-NMSC-024, ¶ 22, 283 P.3d 282 (“[I]t is not within the province of an 14 appellate court to decide ab stract, hypothetical or moot questions in cases wherein no 15 actual relief can be afforded.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and 16 citation omitted)); see also Santa Fe S. Ry., Inc. v. Baucis Ltd. Liab. Co. , 1998- 17 NMCA-002, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 430, 952 P.2d 31 (“ Our concern with issuing advisory 18 opinions stems from the waste of judicial resources used to resolve hypothetical 194 situations which may or may not arise.”). Th erefore, we decline the State’s invitation 1 to address whether Defendant’s statemen ts would be admissible for impeachment 2 purposes “in the event that she testifies[.]” [MIO 9] 3 {5}For the reasons stated in our notice and in this opinion, we affirm. 4 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________ ______________________ 6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 7
WE CONCUR: 8

________________________________ 9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 10

________________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12