Court Opinion

ID: 9561244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:05:53.344024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:41.962702
License: Public Domain

BIVINS, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the discussion of the issues dealing with waiver of the right to a jury trial, effective assistance of counsel and sufficiency of the evidence. I also concur with that portion of the discussion on restitution which concludes that NMSA 1978, Section 31-17-1 (Repl.Pamp.1981), being the victim restitution statute, does not authorize restitution to the state for the amount paid to defendant in the drug transaction. See my dissenting opinion in State v. Hernandez, 104 N.M. 97, 101, 717 P.2d 73, 77 (Ct.App.1986). The majority goes one step further and distinguishes State v. Taylor, 104 N.M. 88, 717 P.2d 64 (Ct.App.1986), on the basis that since the present case does not involve payment of restitution as a condition of probation, Taylor is not controlling. Since I do not agree with Taylor, see my dissenting opinion in Hernandez, I see no need to make such a distinction. I, of course, agree with the result reached and file this separate opinion only to preserve my continuing objection to the rationale of Taylor.