This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official pa per version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 CITY OF ARTESIA, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,592 9 LELAND W. HACKETT, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 12 Thomas A. Rutledge, District Judge 13 McCormick, Caraway and Tabor, LLP 14 Susan M. Moore 15 Carlsbad, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Leland W. Hackett 18 Artesia, NM 19 Pro Se Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 WECHSLER, Judge. 22 Defendant, filing pro se, appeals from the district court’s amended order 232 dismissing the motion to vacate and remandi ng to the municipal court for imposition 1 of the fine and costs it assessed. [RP 43] We issued a notice of proposed summary 2 disposition, proposing to affirm. Defenda nt has responded to our notice with a 3 memorandum in opposition. We have consid ered Defendant’s arguments and are not 4 persuaded that our proposed analysis is incorrect. We affirm. 5 On appeal, Defendant lists the following four arguments. First, Defendant 6 argues that the traffic citati on failed to charge him with an offense, and, therefore, 7 deprived him of the opportunity to prepare a defense. [DS 2-3] Second, Defendant 8 argues that he does not fall within the scope of the traffic offense with which he was 9 charged. [DS 3] Third, Defendant argue s that the judgment and sentence, fining him 10 $500, was in excess of the fine permitted by law. [Id.] Fourth, Defendant argues that 11 the district court failed to send the manda tory notice of dismissal that would have 12 alerted him to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. [Id.] 13 Our notice proposed to affirm on the grounds that none of Defendant’s issues 14 is properly before this Court because De fendant did not properly pursue any of the 15 mechanisms available for obtaining post-convi ction relief. We offered examples of 16 the ways in which Defendant could have sought relief under the criminal rules and 17 failed to do so at every opportunity. [CN 3] We also noted that Defendant did not file 183 a timely appeal to this Court from the distri ct court’s order dismissing his appeal. [Id.] 1 We noted that after the New Mexico Supr eme Court denied his petition for a writ of 2 prohibition, Defendant’s subsequent a ttempt to seek relief under Rule 1-060(B) 3 NMRA was inappropriate. [Id.] We proposed to hold that this rule of civil procedure 4 does not provide Defendant with a remedy from the criminal judgment. [CN 4] 5 In response to our notice, Defendant ar gues that our Court has permitted relief 6 from criminal judgments argued to be void pursuant to Rule 1-060(B), after the 7 abolition of the writ of coram nobis. [MIO 1-2] Upon the adoption of the rules of 8 criminal procedure in 1972, any of the rules of civil procedure governing criminal 9 proceedings were repealed. See Compiler’s Annotations to Rule 5-101 NMRA. Since 10 the governance of the rules of criminal pr ocedure over criminal proceedings, we have 11 refused to apply the rules of civil procedur e to criminal matters, except to the extent 12 that the proceeding is arguably civil in na ture and/or there is no criminal rule 13 governing the procedure at issue. See State v. Roybal , 2006-NMCA-043, ¶ 15, 139 14 N.M. 341, 132 P.3d 598. As our notice point ed out, there were several procedural 15 mechanisms available to Defenda nt under the criminal rules, see Rule 5-614 NMRA; 16 Rule 5-801 NMRA; Rule 7-709(B) NMRA, a nd the appellate rule s of procedure, see 17 Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA; see also NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(A)(1) (1972), to seek 184 relief from the fine imposed. Defendant does not persuade us that it is appropriate to 1 apply a civil rule to a procedure in a crim inal proceeding that is clearly governed by 2 the criminal and appellate rules. 3 Our notice also proposed to refuse to construe Defendant’s Rule 1-060(B) 4 motion as a request for any sort of writ to address, at most, the amount of the fine 5 imposed, where the Supreme Court has al ready denied Defendant writ relief. See In 6 re Adoption of Baby Child , 102 N.M. 735, 737, 700 P.2d 198, 200 (Ct. App. 1985) 7 (noting that the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision on a writ of prohibition was 8 an “implicit determination th at the probation was illegal [t hat] became law of the case 9 and could not be reexamined by the Cour t of Appeals on appeal”). Defendant’s 10 response has not persuaded us to construe his Rule 1-060(B) motion as any other 11 appropriate means of seeking relief that this Court has the power to grant. 12 Lastly, we recognize that Defendant points out that an “aggrieved party” has the 13 absolute right to one appeal and that we may correct an unauthorized sentence at any 14 time. As with any claim, however, the a ppellant must bring his or her appeal and 15 challenge to the sentence appropriately. See State v. Upchurch , 2006-NMCA-076, ¶¶ 16 3-4, 139 N.M. 739, 137 P.3d 679 (rejecting the state’s claim that it has an absolute 17 right to one appeal of a disposition contrary to law when the stat e failed to perfect its 185 appeal and noting that we will not excuse the state’s untimely appeal, as we 1 sometimes do for defendants, “because [the state] does not possess the constitutional 2 right of an accused to the effective assist ance of counsel”). Unlike the supervisory 3 powers of the New Mexico Supreme Court ove r all inferior courts, in the absence of 4 procedural mechanisms that properly bring is sues before this Court, we lack the power 5 to grant Defendant relief. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3. 6 For these reasons and those stated in our notice, we affirm the district court’s 7 order denying Defendant re lief based on his motion filed under Rule 1-060(B). See 8
State v. Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828 (holding that 9 the appellate court will affirm the district court’s decision if it is right for any reason, 10 so long as it is not unfair to the appellant). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

_________ ___________ ____________ 13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

_________________________________ 16 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 176 _________________________________ 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2