1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: F eb ru ar

y 13, 201 7 4 N O. 34, 245 5 JUAN ANTONI O OCH OA BARRAZ A, 6 Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, 7 v

. 8 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO T AX AT ION 9 AND RE VE NUE DE PA RTM ENT , 10 MOTO R VEHI CLE DI VISI ON, 11 Respondent -Appellee. 12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 13 St an Wh it ak er , D ist ri ctJu dg e 14 Be n A

. O rt eg a 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 18 Ta xation and Revenue D epartm ent, L egal Ser vices Bureau 19 Ga brielle D orian, S pecial A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 20 Diana M artw ick, S pecial A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 21 Santa Fe , N M 22 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} T he N ewMe xic o T ax at ion an d Re ve nue D ep ar tm en t, Mot or

V eh ic le D ivi sio n 4 (MV D) , r evoked Driver Juan A nton io Och o a Ba rraz a’ s license under the Im plied 5 Consent Ac t, N MSA1978 , §§ 66-8-105 to -11 2 (1978, as am ended throug h 201 5), 6 an d D ri ve r ap pe al ed

to the dis tr ic t c ourt. I nst ea d of he ar ing the c as e in i ts a

ppe llate 7 ca pa ci ty , the dis tr ic t c ourt, on i ts own m oti on c onve rt ed the c as e int o ape tit ionf or 8 wr it of m andam

us, ar ising under its origin al j uri sd i c t i on, and denied m andam us relief. 9 W e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t cour t er re d in co nve rt ing the ap pe al int o ape tit ionf or 10 wr it of m andam

us, and rem and the case to the district c ourt to decide the case as an 11 ap pe al

. 12 BACKGRO UND 13 { 2} Be rn al ill o Co unty Sh er if f’ s D ep uty Ja son Fo ste r sto ppe d D ri ve r fo r fa ili ng t o 14 m ai nta in a

tr aff ic lane . Upon se ei ng tha t D ri ve r ha d bl oods hot , w at er y e y es , a nd 15 sm elling th e o dor of an alcoholic beverage com ing from the vehicle, D eputy

Foster 16 tol d D ri ve r to e xit

the ve hic le , w he re upon he not ed an odor of al co hol c om ing f ro m 17 Dr iver’ s person. D river tol d De putyFoster that he spoke Spanish, and Deputy Foster 18 ca lle d f

or aS pa nis h- spe ak ing de puty be fo re giv ing D ri ve r fi el d so br ie ty te sts

. D ep uty 19 Jareno responded and transl at ed the instruction s given byDe putyFoster to D river.2

1 D ri ve r fa ile d th e fi el d so br ie ty te sts, a nd D ep uty

F ost er a rr es te d D ri ve r fo r dr ivi ng 2 w hil e unde r the inf

lue nc e of int oxi ca tin g li quor

or dr ugs (D W I)

. N MS A 1978 , § 66 -8

- 3 102 (201 0, am ended 201 6). 4 { 3} A lth oughD ep uty Jare no w as pr es en t, D ep uty F ost er r ea d th e im

pli ed c onse nt 5 advis or y to D ri ve r in E ngl ish

. D ep uty Fo ste r inf orm ed D ri ve r tha t he wa s un de r ar re st 6 fo r D W I an d th at

the I m pli ed Co nse nt A ct

r equir ed him to subm it to a br ea th o r blo od 7 test, or both, to determ ine the alcohol or drug con tent of h i s b l o o d. D eputy Foster 8 furthe r inf

orm ed D ri ve r tha t if he too k the te st, he ha d ar igh t t o take a n a ddi tio na l t es t 9 of his choos ing, together with the right to a r easonable oppo rtunity to arrange for a 1 0 p h ys i c i a n , l i c e n s e dn u r s e , l ab o r a t o ry t e c h n i c i a n o r t e c h n o l o g i s t

e mp l o ye db y a 11 hosp ita l or

phy sic ian to pe rf

orm the a ddi tio na l t es t, the c ost of w hic h w oul d be pa id 12 by the law e nf

or ce m en t ag en cy . D ep uty F ost er the n a ske d D ri ve r if

he a gr ee d to a 13 br ea th t es t, a nd D ri ve r sa id, “N o. ” D ep uty F ost er the n adv is ed

D ri ve r tha t i f he 14 re fu se d, he w oul d lo se his dr ive r’ s li ce nse f or one y ear an d that , if he w as c onvi ct ed , 15 he c oul d r ec ei ve a n e nhanc ed se nte nc e due to the r ef

usa l. De puty Foster asked D river, 16 ha vin g th at

in m ind , did

he nowa gr ee to ta ke the te sts , a nd D ri ve r ag ai n answ er ed , 17 “No.” 18 { 4} D ep uty

F ost er iss ue d D ri ve r a not ic e of r ev oc at ionof

his dr ive r’ s li cens e fo r 19 one y ear, a nd o f his r igh t to an ad m inistr at ive he ar ing be fo re MV D to co nte st the3

1 re voc at ion

. S ec tio ns 6 6- 8- 111( B) a nd 6 6- 8- 111. 1. Dr iver’ s re quest for an 2 adm ini str at ive he ar ing was gr an te d. T he not ic e of the he ar ing spe ci fi ed

that on e of 3 the iss ue s to be de ci de d w as w he the r D ri ve r “ re fu se d to subm it to re que st ed br ea th 4 an d/o r blo od t es tin g, a ft er havin g be en advis ed tha t fa ilure to subm it co uld r es ult in 5 re v o ca t i o n o f [ Dr i v er ’s ] pr i v i l eg e t o d ri v e[ .]” 6 { 5} A heari ng w as he ld b ef or e MV D he ar ing of

fi ce r Jane K ir ch er

pur suant t o 7 Se ct ion66- 8- 112. A ft er c onsi de ri ng the te sti m ony , K ir ch er se t fo rth th e ev ide nc e in 8 de ta il to s uppo rt

he r fa ct ua l de te rm ina tio n tha t D ri ve r spok e E ngl ish an d un de rs too d 9 th e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t a d v i s o ry g i v e n i n E n g l i s h b y D e p u t y F o s t e r , i n c l u din g th e 1 0 co n s eq u en ce s o f re fu s i n g t h e re qu es t ed t es t s . Kir ch er t h er ef o re re je ct e d D r i v er ’s 11 argum ent that the due process protected by Ar ticle II, Sec tion 1 8 of the Ne w Me xico 12 Constitu tion and cases addres sing th e giving of M ira nda w ar

nin gs i n S pa nis h to a 13 Spanish-speaker required D eputy Foster to read or give the im plied consent advi sory 14 to Driver in Spanish. Kirc her foun d t h at Dr iver “ refused to subm it to a requested 15 ch em ic al te st a ft er

he w as pr ope rl y advis ed tha t he w oul d los e his pr ivi le ge to dr ive 1 6 i f he re fu s ed t h e te s t [, ]” an d en t er ed an o rd er s u s t ai n i n g t h e re v o ca t i o n o f D r i v er ’s 17 lic en se f

or one y ear. D ri ve r w as advis ed of his ri ght to ap pe al an d se ek re vie wof the 18 re voc at ionin the dis tr ic t c ourt. 19 { 6} D ri ve r ap pe al ed MV D ’ s r ev oc at ionof his dr ive r’ s lic en se to the dis tr ic t c ourt.4

1 See § 66-8-112 (H ); Rule 1-074(A) NMR A (setting forth the procedure for an appeal 2 fr om a n a dm ini str at ive a ge nc y to the dis tr ic t cour

t “ w he n th er e is a

statut or y r igh t of 3 reviewto the district c ourt”). In his statem ent of issues on appeal, Dr iver argued that 4 even if he spoke English at som e level, there w as no way to gauge his actual 5 understandi ng of what D eputy Foster tol d h im , and because Deputy Jareno w as 6 pr es en t and a

ble to tr an sla te , the im

pli ed co nse nt adv iso ry shou ld hav e bee n give n to 7 him in Spanish, his native lang uage. D river also argued that De putyFoster’ s failure 8 to g ive the im

pli ed c onse nt a dvi sor

y in Sp an ishvio la te s th e due pr oc es s pr ote ct ed by 9 A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 18 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. MV D r es pond ed th at the 10 ev ide nc e supp orte d th e he ar ing of fi ce r’ s fin din g that D ri ve r unde rs too d Eng lis h and 1 1 t h e i mp l i e dc o n s e n ta d v i s o ry. 12 { 7} Th e d i s tri ct co u rt re co g n i ze dt h at t h e c as e b ef o re i twa s an ap p ea l fr o m

MV D’s 13 decision revoki ng Driver’s l i ce n se. H owever , bec ause the district court ruled that 14 MVD had no jurisdiction to rule on Dr iver’ s due process argum ent, the district court 15 al so c oncl ud ed it ha d no j ur isd ic tio n to de ci de the appe al

. I n m ak ing thi s 16 de term ina tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt r ef er re d to our

de ci sio n in Maso v. New Mex ico 17 Taxation & Re venue D ep’t , 2 00 4- NMCA-0 25 , 1 35 N.M. 15 2, 8 5 P .3d 27 6, affirmed , 18 2004 -N MS C- 028, 136 N

. M. 161 , 96 P

. 3d 2 86. W ith out not ic e to the pa rt ie s and o n 19 its ow n m oti on, the dis tr ic t c ourt the n c onstru ed the appe al as a pe ti ti on fo r w ri t of5

1 m andam

us, and, f indin g no basis to issu e a wr it of m andam us, denied relief

. D river 2 ap pe al s. 3 A N A LY SI S 4 { 8} Thi s ca se req ui res us to de te rm in e whe th er t he rel ev an t p or ti on of S ect ion 66- 8- 5 112 g ra n t s au t hority

to MVD to decide Dr iver’ s due process claim in an 6 adm inistrative hearing under the Im plied Consent Ac t. This is a question of lawthat 7 we rev ie w de n ov o. S e e S c h u s t e r v . N

. M

. D e p ’ t o f T ax a t i o n & R e ve nue , 201 2- 8 N MS C- 025, ¶

9, 283 P. 3d 288 (s ta tin g “ [w ] he the r MV D m ust co nc lud e tha t the a rr es t 9 of a driver for D W I is c onsti tutio nal before revoking a driver’ s license requires” that 10 Se ct io n 6 6- 8- 11 2 b e in te rp ret ed , and th at‘ st atut or y in te rp ret at io n’ pre se nts a que sti on 11 of law that i s r ev ie w ed

de nov o) ; Martinez v. N

.M . State E ng’r Office , 20 00 -NMCA12 074, ¶ 20, 129 N

. M. 413 , 9 P. 3d 6 57 ( sta tin g th at de te rm ini ng w ha t i ssu es m ay be 13 de ci de d by

the state pe rs onne l boar d unde r the appl ic ab le statut or y sc he m e pr es en ts 14 a que sti on of la w ). “ Whe n re vie w ing a sta tut e, [a ppe llate co urts] m

ust giv e ef fe ct to 15 the L eg isl at

ur e’ s int en t by

f ir st l ooki ng a t the pla in l an gua ge of the statut e, giv ing the 16 words their ordinary

m ea n i n g , unless th e L egislature indicates a differ ent one was 17 intended.” Schuster , 201 2-N MS C- 025, ¶ 9 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 18 om itted). 19 { 9} A pe rs on w hose li ce nse is re voke d un de r the Im pli ed Co nse nt A ct

m ay c ont es t6

1 the r ev oc at ionby

r eque sti ng a

he ar ing w ith in t enday s afte r re ce ivi ng the not ic e of 2 re voc at ion

. S ect io n 6 6- 8- 11 2( B). Sec ti on 66 -8 -1 12 (E) p ro vid es tha t t he he ar ing “ sha ll 3 be li m it ed ” to co ns id erat io n o f fi ve is su es . Se e id

. (“ T he he ar ing sha ll be li m ite d to 4 the iss ue s: (1 ) w he the r the law en fo rc em en t of fi ce r ha d re as ona

ble gr ound s to b el ie ve 5 tha t the pe rs on h ad

be endr ivi ng a

m oto r ve hi cl e w ith in this state w hil e unde r the 6 inf lue nc e of int oxi ca tin g li quor or dr ug s; ( 2) w he the r the pe rs on w as a rr es te d; ( 3) 7 w he the r thi s he ar ing is he ld n o late r than ni ne ty day s a ft er

not ic e of r ev oc at ion ; and 8 either (4) whether: (a) the person refused to subm it to a test upon request of the law 9 en fo rc em en t of

fi ce r; a nd ( b) the lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce r advis ed th at th e fa ilure to 10 subm it to a

te st c oul d r es ult

in re voc at ionof

the pe rs on’ s pr ivi le ge to dr ive; or ( 5) 11 w he the r: ( a) the ch em ic al te st w as a dm ini ste re d pu rs ua nt t o th e pr ovi sio ns o f the 12 Im pli ed Co nse nt A ct ; and ( b) the te st re sul ts i ndi ca te d an a lc ohol c onc en tr at ionin the 13 pe rs on’ s bl ood or

br ea th o f ei ght

one hun dr edths or m or e if the pe rs on i s tw en ty -o ne 14 y ears of

a ge or old er , f our one hun dr edths or

m or e if the pe rs on i s dr ivi ng a 15 com m ercia l m otor vehicle or two one hundredths or m ore if t h e person is less than 16 tw en ty -o ne y ears of ag e” ). S ec tio ns 6 6- 8- 112( F) a nd ( G ) pr ovi de that the r ev oc at ion 17 m ay be sustain ed only if the hearing officer m akes an aff

irm ative finding as to each 18 iss ue . A pe rs on a dve rs el y a ff ec te d by ade ci sio n of

MV D m ay

the n se ek r ev ie win the 19 district court. Se ction 66 -8-112(H).18 W e al so n ote he re that w he the r a dr ive r re que sts ati m el y he ari ng i s no t 1 19 inc lud ed in the f

ive iss ue s th at

m ay be c onsi de re d by

ahe ar ing of

fi ce r unde r Se ct ion s 20 66-8-112 (E ) and (F ). 7 1 { 10} A s di sc uss ed

above , the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d up on M aso in ar ri vin g at it s r uli ng. 2 In M aso , the driver con ceded th at h e received the notice of revocation, but he failed 3 to m ak e a tim el y

r eque st f

or ahe ar ing

. 200 4- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 1. MV D de nie d hi s 4 req ue st fora he ari ng . Id

. ¶ 5; see § 66 -8 -1 12( B) ( “ Fa ilure to re que st a he ar ing w ith in 5 ten day s shall result in forf ei ture of the person’ s right to a hearing.”). The driver 6 ap pe al ed

to the dis tr ic t cour

t ass er tin g that , be ca

use the not ic e w as in E ngl ish , a nd h e 7 onl y unde rs too d S pa nis h, the not ic e did not c om port w ithdue pr oc es s, a nd h e shou ld 8 ha ve be en gra nt eda he ari ng , no twi th st an di ng hi s l ackof t im el in es s. M aso , 200 4- 9 N MC A -0 25, ¶

¶ 1, 6. T he dis tr ic t co urt re j ec te d the dr ive r’ s du e pr oc es s arg um en t, a nd 10 this Court granted th e driver’ s request for ce rtio ra ri re view of the district court 11 de ci si on . Id

. ¶

6. W e co nc lud ed

that, be ca

use S ec tio n 66 -8 -1 12( E ) pr ovi de s that the 1 2 h ea ri n g “ s h al l b e l i m i t ed ” t o t h e c o n s i d er at i o n o f s p e c i fi c i s s u es , a n dt h e d ri v er ’s 1 3 ar g u m e n t t h a t du e p r o c e s s r e qu i r e d t h e n o t i c e o f r e v o c a t i o n t o b e g i v e n t o h im in 14 Sp an ishis not

inc lud ed in tho se iss ue s, MV D ha d no j ur isd ic tio n to c onsi de r the 15 dr ive r’ s arg um en t. M aso , 2004-NMC A- 025, ¶ 12. W e additionallyconcluded that 1 16 because MVD had no j urisdictio n to decide t he issue raised by the driver, the district 17 co ur t h adno ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on to de ci de th e is su e. Id

. ¶ 13; se e Nesbi t v

. Ci tyof8

1 A lbu que rque , 1977-NMS C-107, ¶ 10, 9 1 N. M. 455, 575 P. 2d 13 40 (concludi ng that 2 a district court has no jurisdiction to co n s i d er an issue on app eal fr om an 3 ad m in is tra ti ve ag en cy

th atde ci de d t he is su e wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on to do so ). 4 { 11} H ow ev er , w e al so n ote d in M aso that the district court had authorityto consid er 5 the dr ive r’ s du e pr oc es s arg um en t un de r its or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n. 200 4- N MC A -0 25, 6 ¶ 1 4 . In v o k i n g l o g i c an d p ri n ci p l es o f ju d i ci al ec o n o m y, we co n s t ru e d t h e d r i v er ’s 7 ap pe al to the dis tr ic t c ourt a s inthe na tur e of ape tit ionf

or w ri t of m an da m

us, a nd the 8 ap pe al be fo re u s as an ap pe al fro m th e d en ia l o f a p et it io n fo r writ of m an da m us . Id

. 9 ¶ 15. W e the n af

fi rm ed the dis tr ic t co urt onthe m er its , c onc lud ing that du e pr oc es s 10 doe s not re qui re tha t w ri tte n not ic e of re voc at ion be giv en to a Sp an ish -s pe ak ing 11 dr iv er i n S pa ni sh

. Id

. ¶ ¶ 18- 21. O n ce rt ior ar i, our Su pr em e Co urt a ff

irm ed the m er its 12 of the due proces s i s s ue without addressing any of the procedural or j urisdictio nal 13 is su es we ha d d eci de d. M aso , 20 04 -NMSC -0 28 , ¶¶ 9, 1 3- 15

. 14 { 12} Dr iver and MVD both ask u s to consid er the a pplicabili ty

of Schuster , 201 2- 15 NMSC -0 25 . One o f th e qu es ti on s th at m us t be affir m at iv el y an swe redbe fo re MVD 16 can r ev ok e a dr ive r’ s li ce nse und er S ec tio n 66 -8 -1 12( E )( 2) is w he the r “ the pe rs on 17 wa s arre sted.” Id

. I n Sc hust er , the iss ue be fo re our Su

pr em e Co urt w as w he the r the 18 Le gislature intend ed a fi n d ing th at a driver wa s “ arre sted” to includ e a f indin g that 19 the driver’ s arre st was c onsti tutio nal. 2012-NMS C-025, ¶ 15. O ur Suprem e Court9

1 answer ed the questio n in the affirm ative, holding, “ the plain m eaning of the word 2 ‘ ar re st’ m eans an arr es t tha t c om pli es w ith the pr ote ct ion s of the F ourth A m en dm en t 3 to the United States Constituti on, and Ar ticle II, Sec tion 1 0 o f t h e New Me xico 4 Constitu tion.” Schuster , 201 2- N MS C- 025, ¶ 18. I t the re fo re c onc lud ed that “ ana rr es t 5 and the und erly ing po lice activity leading to the arre st, m ust be constitu tional before 6 a driver’ s licen s e ca n be revoked und er the I m plied Cons ent Act. ” Id . T he Court 7 recognized that to conclude oth erw ise, that the I m plied Co n s en t Ac t allows an 8 unc onst itu tio na l arr es t to r es ult in the r ev oc at ionof

adr ive r’ s li ce nse , w oul d c al l i nto 9 qu es ti on th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he Im pl ie d C on se nt Act. Id

. ¶

¶ 17- 18. 10 { 13} Re fe rr ing to our de ci sio n in M aso , the dr ive r in Sc hust er al so arg ue d th at the 11 district court m

ust cons ider the constitut io n al i ty of an ar rest under its original 12 juri sd ic ti on an d no t for subs ta nt ia l evi de nc e u nd er i ts ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on . Schuster , 13 20 12 -NMSC -0 25 , ¶ 20 . Ou r Supr em e Co urt d is ag reed an d h el d t ha t b ecau se “ MVD 14 m ust r ule on the c onst itu tio na lity of a n arr es t” be fo re r ev oki ng a dr iv er’s lic en se 15 un de r th e Im

pl i e d C o n s en t Act , M

aso was no t co nt ro ll in g. Schuster , 2012-NMS C16 025, ¶

¶ 20, 22. S ign if

ic an tly , the Co urt no te d th at M aso “ stan d s for the legal 17 propos ition that any

co n s t itutio nal challenge bey ond MVD’ s scope of statutory 18 rev ie w is bro ug ht forth e fi rs t t im e in di st ric t co ur t u nd er i ts o rig in al juri sd ic ti on .” 19 Schuster , 20 12 -NMSC -0 25 , ¶ 21

.10

1 { 14} Bo th p ar

tie s arg ue that Schuster

is co ntr oll ing in thi s c as e, a nd w e ag re e. Pr ior 2 to r evokin g Driver ’ s license, K ircher w as required to aff irm atively

answer whether 3 Dr iver “ refused to subm it to a test upon request” and whether De putyFoster “ advised 4 tha t the fa ilure to subm it to a te st c oul d r es ult

in re voc at ionof

[ D ri ve r’ s] pr ivi le ge to 5 dr ive [. ] ” Se ct ion66- 8- 112( E )( 4) (a ), ( b)

. D ri ve r spe ci fi ca lly a rg ue d th at

be ca use his 6 pr im ar y langua ge is Span is h, due pr oc es s r equir ed that D ep uty

F ost er giv e him the 7 im plied consen t advisory

in Spanish to ensure that Dri v er u nderstood the advisory 8 an d va lid ly

r ef use d to sub m it to the te st. 9 { 15} In Schuster , our

S upr em e Co urt co nc lud ed tha t MV D w as both au tho ri ze d and 10 re qui re d to answer c on st it ut io na l q ue st io ns ari si ng fro m th e la ng ua ge of S ect io n 6 6-8- 11 11 2( E)(2 ). 20 12 -NMSC -0 25 , ¶ 19 . W e se e n o n eed t o de pa rt f ro m th atrat io na le . A 12 dr ive r’ s li ce nse is an“ im portant, pr ote ct ibl e ri ght,” S t ev en s v. N.M .T rans p. D ep’t , 13 1987 -N MC A -0 95, ¶

12, 106 N

. M. 198 , 740 P.2 d 11 82 , sub j ec t t o du e pr oc es s 14 pr ot ect io ns . Maso v. N.M

. Taxation & Re venue D ep ’t , 200 4- N MS C- 028, ¶ 10, 136 15 N

. M. 161 , 96 P

. 3d 2 86 ( “ D ue pr oc es s r equir es not ic e an d an op portun ity f or ahe ar ing 16 before the S tate can suspend or revoke a person’ s driver ’s l i ce n s e.”). It appear s an 17 ope n qu es tio n w he the r due pr oc es s r equir es that a non -E ngl ishspe ak ing dr ive r fu lly 18 unde rs tand the im

pli ca tio ns o f his or

he r re fu sa l t o su

bm it to a br ea th- or

blo od19 al co hol te st u

pon re que st. I n a cc or da nc e w ith Schuster , w e co nc lud e tha t M V D m ust11

1 an sw er thi s c onst itu tio na l qu es tio n inde te rm ining wh ethe r it can answ er the 2 q uestion s posed by Section 66-8-112 (E )(4) in the affir m ative. Following MV D’s 3 ru lin g on the m atte r, the dis tr ic t co urt m ust , on ap pe al , he ar an d de ci de the que sti on 4 in it s ap pe ll at e cap aci ty andno t u nd er its or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n. Schuster , 2012-NMS C5 025, ¶ 22. 6 { 16} Whe the r the dis tr ic t co urt is ac tin g unde r its or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n inm an da m us 7 or it s a ppe llate c ap ac ity , it

ha s ve ry r ea l c onse que nc es . Whe n th e dis tr ic t c ourt si ts i n 8 its a ppell at e ca

pa ci ty , S ec tio n 66 -8 -1 12( H ) dir ec ts tha t i t i s “ to d et er m ine onl y 9 w he the r re as ona

ble gr ound s exis t f

or r ev oc at ion[ of

the dr ive r’ s li ce nse ] ba se d onthe 10 recor d of

the a dm ini str at ive pr oc ee din g. ” Init s a ppe llate c ap ac ity , the standard of 1 1 r e v i e w t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtap p l i e s i s : ( 1 ) wh e t h e r M V D a c t e df

r au du l e n t l y, 12 arbitrar ily , or capriciously ; (2) w hether MV D’ s decision is suppo rted by subst antial 13 ev ide nc e; ( 3) w he the r MV D ’ s a ct ionis out sid e the sc ope of it s au tho ri ty ; or ( 4) 14 whe th er MVD’s ac ti on was o th erwi se no t in acco rd an ce with la w. Rul e 1 -0 74 (R). On 15 the oth er

hand, “ [m ] an da m

us l ie s on ly

. . . w he re , on a give n stat e of f ac ts, [ a] pub lic 1 6 o f f i c e r h a s ac l e a r

l e g a l du t y t o p e r f

o rm th e a c ta n dt h e r e i s n o o t h e r p l a i n , s p e e d y, 17 and adequate rem edy

in the ordinary

course of the law .” M

im bres V all eyI rri gat ion 18 Co . v . S

a lopek , 200 6- N MC A -0 93, ¶ 11, 140 N

. M. 168 , 140 P

. 3d 1 117. “ T he w ri t 19 applies onl y

to m inisterial duties and it will not lie when the m atter has been e ntrusted12

1 to the ju d g m ent or discretion of the publ ic office r. ” Id

. T hus, ve ry dif fe re nt 2 co nsi de ratio ns and s tandard s a ppl y a s to howadis tr ic t court is to tre at

the lawa nd 3 fa ct s be fo re it , de pe ndi ng o n w he the r the di str ic t c ourt i s a ct ing in its appe llate 4 j ur isd ic tio n or

in its or igi na l m an da m

us j ur isd ic tio n. 5 { 17} T he re a re a lso a ddi tio na l c onse que nc es . When the dis tr ic t c ourt si ts i n it s 6 ap pe llate c ap ac ity an d issue s a fina l orde r in a MV D dr ive r’ s lic en se re voc at ionc as e 7 suc h a s th is, the re is no r igh t t o a furthe r ap pe al in this Co urt. Ra the r, a tim el y pe tit ion 8 fo r a wri t of ce rt ior ar i m ust be f ile d inthi s C ourt, w hic h is gr an te d or de nie d a t the 9 discretion of the Court. Rule 1-074(V) ; Rule 12 -5 0 5 NM RA . D river did not file a 10 petition for certiorar i, and even if we could consider Dr iver’ s docketing statem ent as 11 su ch a pe ti ti on , i t was no t ti m el y , a nd we wou ld no t h av e juri sd ic ti on . Se e W ak ef ie ld 12 v. N. M. T

a xa t i on & Re venue D ep’t , 201 2- N MC A -0 25, ¶ ¶ 9, 16, 18, 274 P

. 3d 1 22 1 3 ( s t a t i n g t h a t“ t h e t i mel y f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n f

o r a w r i to f

c e rt i o r a r i ” wi t h i n t h i rt y d a ys 14 of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ina l or de r to be re vie w ed “ is a m an da tor y pr ec ondi tio n” to our 15 ex er ci se of

j ur isd ic tio n, a nd w hil e a doc ke tin g st at em en t c ansub sti tut e fo r a pe tit ion 16 fo r w ri t of

c er tio rari , it m ust a ls o be file d w ith in thirty day s of the or de r to b e 17 review ed). On the other h an d , when th e district court acts under its original 18 j ur isd ic tio n, ana ggr ie ve d party ha s ar igh t t o a

ppe al to thi s C ourt by

f ili ng a ti m el y 19 not ic e of

appe al in the dis tr ic t c ourt and a ti m el y doc ke tin g st at em en t i n th is C ourt.13

1 Ru le 12- 202 N MR

A ; R ule 12- 208 N MR

A

. I n f ac t, due to the co nf

usi on cause d by

the 2 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ct ion , an d w he the r D ri ve r w as re qui re d to f ile ape tit ionf

or w ri t of 3 ce rt ior ar i or ha d pr ope rl y fi le d a not ic e of ap pe al , w e iss ue d an or de r to s howc au se 4 why th is ap pe al sh ou ld no t b e d is m is se d. Se e Smi th v. Ci ty of Sa nt a Fe , 2007-NMS C5 055, ¶ 10, 142 N. M. 786, 171 P. 3d 30 0 (s t at i n g that an appellate court m ay raise a 6 que sti on o f j ur isd ic tio n onit s ow n m oti on, a nd l ac k of j ur isd ic tio n a t an y

sta ge m ust 7 be r es olv ed

be fo re pr oc ee din g f

urthe r)

. T he part ie s’ r es pon ses t o th e or de r to s how 8 ca use pr ovi de d us w ithva lua ble ins igh ts i n di spos ing of thi s a ppe al

. 9 { 18} W e the re fo re c onc lud e tha t the distri ct court e rr ed in co nve rt ing the 10 adm ini str at ive ap pe al be fo re it int o ape tit ionf or w ri t of m an da m us ari sin g un de r its 11 or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n and tha t the or de r of the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust the re fo re be r ev er se d. 12 W e rem an d t he cas e to th e d is tri ctco ur t fo r co ns id erat io n i n i ts ap pe ll at e cap aci ty. 13 CONCLUSI ON 14 { 19} T he or de r of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r ev er se d, a nd the c as e is r em an de d to the 15 dis tr ic t c ourt f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs i n a cc or da nc e w iththi s op ini on. 16 { 20} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 18 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e14

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 3 JAM ES J. WEC HSLER , Jud ge

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 5 JONA THA N B . S UTIN , Jud ge