Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c a tio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Reports. Please se e Rule 12-405 NMRA f or re strictions on the citation of unpublished me mor and

um o pin ion s. Ple a se a lso no te that th is e le c tr on ic me mor and um o pin ion

may c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations from the off icial pape r ver sion filed by the Court of Appe als and doe s not include the filing date. 1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 3 HUMAN SERVI CES DEPARTMENT , 4 CS ED , 5 Petitioner-Appellee, 6 N O. 34, 644 7 JO SEFI NA LUJAN, 8 Co-Respondent-Appellee, 9 an d 10 LAURO BO RUNDA, 11 Co -R es pond en t- Appe llant. 12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA N JU AN CO UN TY 13 D ar le ne M ar sh , D ist ri ctJu dg e 14 Josefina Luj an 15 Bl oo m fie ld , NM 16 Pro Se Appellee 17 N ewMe xic o H um anS er vic es D ep ar

tm en t 18 Larry He y eck 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 fo r App el le e NMCS ED2

1 Santiago E. Juarez 2 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 3 fo r Appe llant
4 MEM ORA ND UM OP INION 5 VIGIL, Ch ief Judge. 6 { 1} C o - R e s p o n d e n t - Ap p e l l a n tL au r o B o r u n d a ( Ap p e l l a n t ) s e e k s t o ap p e a l f r o m a 7 fi na l j udgm en t i n th e unde rl y ing pr oc ee din gs . W e pr ev iou sly iss ue d anot ic e of 8 propos ed summ ary

dispo sition , proposing to dism iss for failure to tim ely file notice 9 of appe al
. Appe llant h as f

ile d a m em or an dum in oppo sit ion
. A ft er due c onsi de ratio n, 10 w e re m ai n unpe rs ua de d. W e the re fo re dis m iss
. 11 { 2} Appe llant d oe s no t di sput e the f ac t tha t he f

ile d his not ic e of ap pe al in ex ce ss 12 of four m onth s late. As we previousl y observed, appeals are not ty pically entertained 13 under s uc h c irc um st an ces . See, e. g., Chavez v. U- haul Co. of N. M. , I

nc. , 1 9 9 7 -N M SC14 051,¶¶ 19-23, 124 N. M. 165, 947 P.2d 122 (hear ing an appeal where notice was f iled 15 fifty -eight m inutes late, but declining to hear an a ppeal filed thirty

day s late). 16 { 3} W e u nd ers tand Appe llant t o su gge st tha t a not ic e of appe al that w as f

ile d in 17 connection w ith a prior appeal shoul d be regarded a s sufficient. [ MIO 2] How ever, 18 ins of ar a s th at appe al was pr ev iou sly

dis m iss ed

a nd m an da te w as iss ue d, it ha s no 19 bearing on the ins tant m atter.3

1 { 4} A lte rn at ive ly , w e unde rs tand Appe llant t o c ont en d th at his fi lin g of

am oti on 2 to r ei nst at e shou ld b e de em ed suf fi ci en t. [ MI O 2] A lth ou gh we oc ca sio na lly giv e 3 oth er doc um en ts the ef fe ct of a not ic e of ap pe al , w e onl y do so if th e doc um en ts 4 co m pl y wit h t he ti m e an d p l a c e o f fi li ng req ui rem en ts . See generally Ru le 12- 5 2 0 1 ( A ) ( 2 ) NM RA ( p r o v i d i n g t h a tan o t i c e o f ap p e a l mu s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n t h i rt y d a ys 6 aft er en try of t he fin al jud gm en t o r or de r of th e d is t r i c t c o u r t ) ; Ru le 12 -2 02 (A) 7 N MR A ( pr ovi din g that ap pe al s “ sha ll be ta ke n by fi lin g anot ic e of appe al w iththe 8 d i s t rict court cler

k”) and se e, e . g. , Govich v. N. Am . Sys. , I nc. , 1 9 9 1
- N M SC -0 61, 9 ¶ 12, 112 N. M. 226, 814 P. 2d 94 (stating a “ policy of facilitating the right of appeal 10 by l i b erally construing technical deficiencie s in a notice of appeal oth erwi se 11 sat isf yi ng t he ti m e and pla ce of

fil ing re qui remen ts ” (e m

pha sis a dde d) ). B ec au se 12 Appe llant’ s m oti on to re ins ta te w as fi le d wi th this Co urt ra the r than the distri ct c ourt, 13 [M IO 2] a nd b ec au se w e fi nd n o in dic at ionthat th e m ot ionw as f ile d w ith in the 14 ap pli ca

ble thi rty -d ay

pe ri od, it is not a n a de qua te sub sti tut e fo r a not ic e of appe al
. 15 { 5} W e unde rs tand Appe llant t o f urth er s ugge st tha t hi s f

ai lur e to f

ile ati m el y 16 not ic e of

appe al w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt should b e ch ar ac te ri ze d a s a“ te ch nic al ” 1 7 v i o l a t i o n o f

R u l e 1 2
- 2 0 2 NM RA , s u c h t h a tR u l e 1 2
- 3 1 2 ( C ) NM RA s h o u l dap p l y. 18 [M IO 2] H ow ev er , vio la tio ns o f m an da tor y pr ec ondi tio ns t o th e ex er ci se of appe llate 19 j urisdictio n, such as the tim e and place of f iling requirem ents, cannot be chara cterize d4

1 as “ te ch ni cal vi ol at io ns ” to whi ch Ru le 12 -3 12 (C) is ad dr es se d. See State v. Vasquez , 2 2014 -N MSC -010, ¶¶

21-22, 326 P.3d 447 (dist ingu ishin g between m andatory 3 pr ec ondi tio ns t o th e ex er ci se of appe llate j ur isd ic tio n and t ec hni ca l vi ola tio ns, 4 relative to the application of Rule 12-312 (C))
. 5 { 6} Fi na lly , Appe llant urg es the Co urt t o c onsi de r the m eri ts pu rsuant t o it s 6 inh er en t auth or ity
. [ MI O 2- 3] H ow ev er , ins of ar a s Appe llant has fa ile d to m ak e the 7 re qui sit e show ing of

“ the m ost

unu sua l circ um stanc es be y ond the c ontro l of the 8 pa rti es .” Cl inesm ith v. Temmer m an , 201 3- N MC A -0 24, ¶ 37, 298 P
. 3d 4 58 9 (a lte ratio ns, int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ), w e de cl ine the inv itatio n. 10 { 7} Ac cordingly , f or t he r e a so ns s t a t e d abo ve a nd i n t he n ot i c e o f

p r op os ed 11 sum m ar y dis posi tio n, w e dis m iss
. 12 { 8} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

13

____ ____ ____ ________ ____ ____ ___ 14 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e 15 WE CO NCUR:
16

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 17 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e5

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 2 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e