State v. Florez, 35,221

Defendant Ruben Florez was convicted by a jury of three counts of assault on a peace officer; verdict entered August 3, 2015.
On October 7, 2015, Florez filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
The motion was scheduled to be addressed at sentencing; a judgment and sentence was entered October 22, 2015.
The record contains a clerical entry reflecting the judge’s oral denial of the motion (filed October 21), but no written, signed order expressly disposing of the motion.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed disposition to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order; Florez opposed but the court remained unpersuaded.
The Court dismissed the appeal as prematurely filed because no formal written ruling disposed of the post‑judgment motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a post‑judgment motion for new trial filed within 30 days renders the judgment nonfinal until a written order disposes of it	State: Post‑judgment motions suspend finality until a written ruling is entered	Florez: Motion was expressly denied via the court proceedings entry (page 76) and therefore appealable	Court: Motion practice suspends finality; a clerical record of an oral ruling is insufficient—an express written order disposing of the motion is required before appeal

State v. Romero, 327 P.3d 525 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (timely post‑judgment motion under Rule 5‑801 suspends finality until a written ruling is entered)
Harrison v. ICX, Ill.-Cal. Express, Inc., 647 P.2d 880 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982) (appeals lie only from a formal written order or judgment signed by the judge and filed in the case)
Martinez v. Friede, 86 P.3d 596 (N.M. 2004) (abrogated Harrison on other grounds; cited for procedural context)