the year before. Based on that evidence, Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree murder. {7} Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that the search of his home did not commence until after 10:00 p.m. and was therefore illegal. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. The court agreed with Defendant that APD had not entered the home to gather evidence until after 10:00 p.m. Although, as we have seen, the search process had begun earlier that afternoon, the court concluded that APD needed a nighttime warrant. The prosecutor then moved the court to reconsider its ruling. After another hearing, the trial court again ruled in Defendant’s favor. This interlocutory appeal followed. See State v. Smallwood, 2007-NMSC-005, ¶ 11, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 (<HOLDING>). DISCUSSION {8} We review a trial court’s
holding that this court has jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in cases involving a sentence of life imprisonment or death holding that this court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in situations where a defendant may possibly be sentenced to life imprisonment or death holding that a statute providing for interlocutory appeals to be heard in the court where appellate jurisdiction may be vested by law means that this court has appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in cases where the sentence of life imprisonment or death may be imposed holding that the trial court may not retain jurisdiction over a sentence when the defendant is sentenced under the guidelines holding that 18 usc  1959a1 which provides for a punishment of death or life imprisonment or a fine under this title or both id emphases added provides a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment