of repeated trials.” State v. Lujan, 103 N.M. 667, 671, 712 P.2d 13, 17 (Ct.App.1985). Thus, Defendant Esparza’s double jeopardy rights were not violated. {27} With regard to Defendant Booth, the State likewise complied with the requirement that the criminal prosecution and forfeiture of assets be pursued in a single, bifurcated proceeding. Although the forfeiture motion was not included in Defendant Booth’s indictment, it was filed three days later under the same cause number and was directed to the same district judge. We agree with Defendant Booth that the mere act of assignment of a docket number is insufficient, of itself, to demonstrate that the penalties were sought in a single, bifurcated proceeding. See Village of Deming v. Marquez, 74 N.M. 747, 749, 398 P.2d 266, 267 (1965)(<HOLDING>). However, the initiation of all proceedings in
holding that evi dence establishing lack of criminal intent does not necessarily demonstrate in a civil case that the act is not intentional holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case holding decision on a motion to restore the case to the active docket is not immediately appealable holding that mere fact that clerk assigned defendants case a civil docket number did not demonstrate that the district court failed to treat the case as a criminal matter holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court