IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 29,454 4 PHOEBE GARCIA, 5 Defendant-Appellant, 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 13 Nancy M. Hewitt, Assist ant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Judge. 18 Defendant appeals the district court order denying her motion to dismiss the 19 State’s probation revocation petition, finding th at Defendant violated the terms of her 20 probation, continuing Defendant’s probati on, and ordering Defendant to complete 212 treatment at Totah Behavioral Treatment Program. [RP 83] We proposed to reverse. 1 In response, the State filed a memorandum in opposition. We have duly considered 2 the State’s arguments, but we are not pers uaded by them. We therefore reverse. 3 Defendant entered into a pl ea agreement with respect to the original charges in 4 this case. She was sentenced, her sent ence was suspended, and she was placed on 5 probation for three years. While on pr obation, Defendant was arrested for 6 intoxication, which was in violation of th e conditions of her pr obation. A report was 7 filed, and the district court entered an order directing the State to file a motion to 8 revoke Defendant’s probation or file a notice of its intent to not pursue the violation 9 of probation. The State filed a motion to revoke Defendant’s probation. However, 10 an adjudicatory hearing on the petition was not held within the time limits under Rule 11 5-805(H) NMRA. Because a timely adjudi catory hearing was not held, Defendant 12 filed a motion to dismiss the State’s petition with prejudice as required by Rule 5- 13 805(L). Id. (providing that a motion to revoke probation shall be dismissed with 14 prejudice if a hearing on the alleged probati on violation is not held within the time 15 limits of the rule). 16 In our calendar notice, we noted that the time limits for a hearing can be 17 extended for “good cause shown.” See Rule 5-805(K). We proposed to hold that the 18 district court impliedly extended the time limit for the adjudicatory hearing based on 193 its statement that the court “just screwed up.” We proposed to hold that there was not 1 “good cause” for an extension of time based on the fact that the court “screwed up,” 2 and we proposed to reverse the district court denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss 3 the revocation petition. In response, the State does not challenge the proposed 4 disposition as discussed in our calendar noti ce. Instead, the State concedes that the 5 adjudicatory hearing was not held in a timely manner, and that the appropriate 6 disposition is simply to reverse the deni al of Defendant’s mo tion and require the 7 district court to enter an order dismissi ng the petition for probation violation. [MIO 8 1, 2, 5] 9 The State argues that because Defendant ’s probation was continued “pursuant 10 to the terms and conditions of the judgm ent and sentence and original terms of 11 probation,” Defendant was not prejudiced by the untimely adjudicatory hearing. 12 [MIO 5] It appears that th e State is claiming that, evenif the petition for revocation 13 is dismissed, the result from the district c ourt order will not change. We disagree with 14 the State’s claim. The district court did not merely order that the probation as 15 originally ordered be continued. Instead , the district court addressed the State’s 16 petition for revocation of pr obation and found that Defendant violated her probation. 17 In addition, the district court required, “as a special condition of continuing 18 probation,” that Defendant successfully complete Totah Behavioral Treatment 194 Program. [RP 86] These actions were th e direct result of the State’s petition to 1 revoke Defendant’s probation, and were not part of Defendant’s original probation. 2 Therefore, with the dismissal of the State’s petition, all orders that resulted from that 3 petition will be nullified. 4 For the reasons discussed in this opinion and in our calendar notice, we reverse 5 the district court denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss the State’s petition to revoke 6 Defendant’s probation. We remand for en try of an order dismissing the State’s 7 petition with prejudice as requi red under Rule 5-805(L). With the dismissal of the 8 petition, all orders flowing from the petition are null and void. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10
11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12 WE CONCUR: 13

14 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 15

16 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 17