been substantially different, Mother may have had a stronger position, however, under these facts, Mother’s argument provides no basis for reversing the termination of parental rights and requiring the district court to order the Department to engage in reasonable efforts toward reunification of Mother and Child. We do not foreclose the possibility that in some cases where a prior termination of parental rights is pending appeal, the facts or circumstances of the case may call for delaying an aggravated circumstances determination pending the outcome of the appeal. Whether the court should make an aggravated circumstances determination and the timing of such a determination is properly left to the sound discretion of the district court. See § 32A-4-22(C); Amy B., 2003-NMCA-0.17, ¶ 14 (<HOLDING>). Despite Mother’s desire that we do so, we
recognizing district courts discretion to consider pending state charge in determining sentence holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding that while reviewing courts usually defer to discretion of trial judge in granting or denying a continuance grant of two short continuances where alien requested time to find a lawyer is an abuse of discretion recognizing the courts discretion to find aggravated circumstances recognizing that the legislature has provided circuit courts with broad openended discretion in sentencing individuals for the offenses of aggravated robbery