This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 32,300 4 DAVID WARNER, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 7 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 David Warner 12 Ruidoso, NM 13 Pro se Appellant 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 CASTILLO, Chief Judge. 162 Defendant appeals from the district court’s order remanding the case back to the 1 magistrate court for disposition based on the passing of the six-month time limitation 2 for holding a de novo trial. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, 3 proposing to affirm. Defendant has filed a motion to qua sh a bench warrant, a motion 4 for stay, and a memorandum in opposition to our notice. We have considered both 5 motions and the response to our notice. We remain unpersuaded that the district court 6 erred by dismissing his case and deny Defendant’s motion to quashthe bench warrant 7 and his motion for a stay. 8 Memorandum in Opposition 9 Our notice proposed to affirm on the grounds that, based on the presumption 10 of correctness we employ in the absence of a complete factual recitation of the 11 proceedings below and based on what we could glean from the record, Rule 6-703(L) 12 NMRA (effective until August 3, 2012) seemed to permit the district court’s dismissal 13 of Defendant’s appeal. 14 We note that Subsections L and M of Ru le 6-703, upon which the district court 15 and this Court relied, wererepealed by amendment eff ective August 3, 2012, for all 16 cases filed or pending, and the rule now re quires that de novo appeals follow the Rules 17 of Criminal Procedure for the district court. Because the district court was governed 18 by the former Rule 6-703 at the time of its ruling dismissing the appeal for violation 193 of the time limitation under the rule, the former version of Rule 6-703 controls this 1

case. See State v. Martinez , 2011-NMSC-010, ¶ 7, 149 N.M. 370, 249 P.3d 82 2 (describing the prospective application of a rule change as “the norm” and stating that 3 “[i]n the criminal context, better practice usually demands that rule changes apply 4 prospectively in cases where district courts have already applied a previous version 5 of a rule”); see also N.M. Mining Comm’n v. United Nuclear Corp. , 6 2002-NMCA-108, ¶ 4, 133 N.M. 8, 57 P.3d 862 (indicating that when applying a rule 7 to a pending case, the rule change only applies to a case pending in the tribunal that 8 will be affected by the rule change or will have the benefit of the rule change at the 9 time it makes its ruling). 10 In response to our notice, Defendant contends that we did not state what rules 11 Defendant failed to comply with in draf ting his docketing statement and argues that 12 he did provide this Court with sufficient in formation. [MIO 2] To the contrary, we 13 informed Defendant that he violated Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA and explained that 14 included in the rule’s requirement to provideus all the information material to his 15 appellate issues is the requirement that De fendant provide us w ith all the facts that 16 support the district court’s ruling. Thornton v. Gamble , 101 N.M. 764, 769, 688 P.2d 17 1268, 1273 (Ct. App. 1984). We explained th at the failure to comply with the rule 18 could result in contempt sanctions or affirm ance and that we need not even review an 194 undeveloped issue. See id. ; State v. Chamberlain , 109 N.M. 173, 176, 783 P.2d 483, 1 486 (Ct. App. 1989); see also Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp. , 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 2 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (stating that anappellate court need not review an 3 undeveloped argument). The docketing stat ement failed to address the grounds upon 4 which the district court ruled. Neverthe less, this Court reviewed the record to 5 discover the grounds for the district court’ s ruling and, based on our review of the 6 record and presuming all predicate facts were appropriately found, we proposed to 7 hold that Rule 6-703(L) permitted the district court’s dismissal. See Rule 6-703(L) 8 (“The time for trial in the district court on a de novo appeal shall be within six (6) 9 months after the filing of the notice of app eal . . . [,]” and upon the expiration of that 10 time limit, the appeal may be dismissed.). 11 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition co mplains that case law suggests that 12 the appellate courts do not search the reco rd on their own to find error. [MIO 2-3] 13 Defendant is correct that we avoid doing so and, indeed, we have not searched the 14 record in an effort to find error. We discovered the grounds upon which the district 15 court ruled, discovered facts that support the ruling, and presumed correctness. 16 Defendant further complains that our revi ew of the record was not of the whole 17 record and highlighted only matters favorable to the prosecution. [MIO 3] This 18 approach is appropriate, however, under the presumption of correctness and applicable 195 standard of review where there is a defici ent record or, in this case, a deficient 1 docketing statement. See State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001 ¶ 53, 126 N.M. 438, 971 2 P.2d 829 (“Where there is a doubtful or defi cient record, every presumption must be 3 indulged by the reviewing court in favor of the correctness and regularity of the 4 [district] court’s judgment.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. 5 Aragon , 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is 6 a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the 7 party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 8 Also in response to our notice, Defendant asserts that he was not responsible 9 for the delays in reaching disposition in th e de novo trial, given the resetting of trial 10 dates and judge recusals. [MIO 1-2] As we indicated in our notice, it is incumbent 11 upon the appellant to pur sue his or her appeal in a timely manner, see Martinez v. 12 Chavez , 2008-NMSC-021, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 1, 183 P.3d 145, and if the de novo appeal 13 is “not timely tried, the appeal must be dismissed.” State v. Heinsen , 14 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 2, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040; see Rule 6-703(L) and (M). We 15 also observed that there is no indication in the record there was any extension of time 16 to reach disposition in district court as provided by Rule 6-703(M): “The time limit 17 specified in Paragraph L of this rulemay be extended one time for a period not 18 exceeding ninety (90) days upon a showing of good cause to a justice of the Supreme 196 Court.” Defendant does not c ontend in his response that he obtained an extension of 1 time and does not give us any indication why he did not need to obtain one. 2 For the reasons stated above and in our notice, we affirm the district court’s 3 dismissal of his appeal. 4 Motion to Quash Bench Warrant and Motion for Stay 5 Defendant has filed a motion to quash a bench warrant that was issued on 6 August 15, 2012. This is a matter for the c ourt that issued the bench warrant, not this 7 Court. Defendant asserts th at this Court has supervisory jurisdiction. [Motion 2] To 8 the contrary, this Court has appellate jurisdiction only. Weare a court of record, and 9 Defendant’s motion involves a matter not of record. See State v. Hunter , 2001- 10 NMCA-078, ¶ 18, 131 N.M. 76, 33 P.3d 296 (“Matters not of record present no issue 11 for review.”). The relief Defendant seeks must be ruled upon by th e trial court in the 12 first instance. 13 Defendant also has filed a motion for stay in this Court, wh ich is addressed to 14 the district and magistrate courts as well. Again, Defendant seeks relief that can be 15 provided only by the court en forcing the judgment Defendant wants to avoid. See 16 Rule 12-205 NMRA; Rule 12-207 NMRA. 17 As set forth above, the district court’s order of remand for imposition of 18 sentence is affirmed and Defendant’s motions are hereby denied. 197 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

__________________________________ 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6

__________________________________ 7 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 8