This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 PATRICIA ROYBAL CABALLERO, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3 v. No. 31,793 4 NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF 5 WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, 6 Respondent-Appellee, 7 and 8 CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF 9 CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, 10 Employer/Respondent-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Alan M. Malott, District Judge 13 Patricia Roybal Caballero 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 Marshall Ray, DWS General Counsel 17 Elizabeth A. Garcia, General Counsel 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellees 202 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VIGIL, Judge. 2 Patricia Roybal Caballero (Petitioner) appeals from the district court’s order 3 denying her motion for reconsideration filed on September 21, 2011. [RP 51] 4 Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in distri ct court on October 19, 2011. [RP 53] The 5 docketing statement was filed in this Court on January 30, 2012. [Ct. App. File] 6 Pursuant to Petitioner’s letter filed in this Court on December 12, 2011, this Court 7 accepted the docketing statement as timely f iled on February 2, 2012. [Id.] Because 8 Petitioner did not timely file a petition fo r writ of certiorari as required by the 9 applicable rules and statute, the calendar notice proposed to deny the petition. [Ct. 10 App. File, CN1] Petitioner has filed a memorandum in opposition that we have duly 11 considered. [Ct. App. File, MIO] Unpersuaded, however, we deny the petition. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Recently, this Court explained Rule 12-505 NMRA, which governs appeals to 14 this Court from decisions of the district court from administrative appeals pursuant to 15 Rule 1-077 NMRA. Wakeland v. N.M. Dep’t of Workforce Solutions and Gilman 16 Law Offices, LLC , 2012-NMCA-021, __ N.M . __, 274 P.3d 766, cert. denied , __ U.S. 17 __, __ S. Ct. __ (No. 11,970, June 11, 2012). Rule 12-505 requires a party to seek 18 discretionary review in this Court of the district court’ s decision in a Rule 1-077 case 193 by means of petition for writ of certiorari filed in this Court within thirty days of the 1 district court’s final action. Wakeland, 2012-NMCA-021, ¶ 4. Wakeland holds that 2 a non-conforming document will be accepted as a petition for writ of certiorari if the 3 non-conforming document provides sufficient information to assess its merits as a 4 petition. Id. ¶¶ 6-17. A docketing statement that satisfies Rule 12-208 NMRA, for 5 example, is a non-conforming document that satisfies the Rule 12-505 information 6 requirements, but a notice of appeal is not. Wakeland, 2012-NMCA-021, ¶¶ 6-17. 7 A non-conforming petition for writ of certio rari must still meet the time and 8 place requirements of Rule 12-505(C). “Thepetition for writ of certiorari shall be 9 filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days after entry of the 10 final action by the district court.” Id.; see Wakeland , 2012-NMCA-021, ¶¶ 18-22. 11 An untimely filing will only be excused in unusual circumstances that are outside the 12 control of the parties, such as court error. Id. ¶¶ 23-26. The Wakeland rationale is 13 buttressed by the policy consideration that a petitioner has already had an appeal as 14 of right from the administrative action in distri ct court, and the appeal to this Court is 15 subsequent certiorari review th at is discretionary only. Id. ¶¶ 14-15, 22 (recognizing 16 that a notice of appeal will rarely demonstr ate that discretionary appellate review is 17 warranted, and that the policy considerations that favor liberal construction of a notice 18 of appeal are not at issue when a party has already had an appeal of right in district 19 court and thereafter seeks discretionaryappellate review in this Court). 204 As in Wakeland , in this case, Petitioner filed a no tice of appeal in district court 1 and a docketing statement, rather than a petition for writ of certiorari. In order for 2 Petitioner to have perfected her appeal inthis Court by way ofa timely filed non3 conforming document, therefore, she had to file the docketing statement in this Court 4 within thirty days of the district c ourt’s September 21, 2011 order—not a notice of 5 appeal in district court within thirty days from that order. Petitioner’s non-conforming 6 petition for writ of certiorari was not filed within thirty days of the district court’s 7 order and was therefore untimely. 8 In the memorandum, Petitioner argues that a case relied upon in Wakeland , 9 Roberson v. Board of Educ ation of City of Santa Fe , 78 N.M. 297, 298-99, 430 P.2d 10 868, 869-70 (1967), would allow Petitioner’s no tice of appeal, request for extension 11 to file a docketing statement, and docketing statement, together, to be construed as a 12 timely filed petition not barred by th e doctrine of laches. [MIO 2] See Wakeland , 13 2012-NMCA-021, ¶ 8-9. In Roberson , however, the petition was not dismissed 14 because “at that time there was no statute or rule setting a time limit for the filing of 15 a petition for certiorari and because laches di d not bar the filing of the petition that the 16 petitioner filed after she filed her improper notice of appeal.” Wakeland , 2012- 17 NMCA-021, ¶ 9 (citing Roberson , 78 N.M. at 300-03, 430 P.2d at 871-74). In this 18 case, a laches discussion is not applicable, because, unlike when Robersonwas filed 19 in 1967, Rule 12-505(C) specifically sets forth a time limit for the filing of a petition 205 for certiorari: “The petition for writ of certiora ri shall be filed with the clerk of the 1 Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days after entry of the final action by the district 2 court.” 3 Petitioner also argues that the circumstan ces of her appeal satisfy the “unusual 4 circumstances” that excuse a late filing. [M IO 3-7] She argues th at she is appearing 5 pro se and the procedures for filing an appeal are unclear, and therefore she entitled 6 to leniency. [MIO 3-5] In addition, Petitioner points out she was extremely busy 7 caring for her elderly mother and carrying out her graduate studies during the appeal 8 process. [MIO 6-7] Petitioner further conti nues to argue the merits of her appeal with 9 regard to the admission of certain evidence. [MIO 8-14] We are not persuaded. 10 Even though Petitioner’s mother was ill and Petitioner was distracted and busy 11 caring for her and going to graduate school, sh e filed a notice of appeal, a request for 12 extension on the docketing statement, and a docketing statement. Petitioner was 13 simply unaware that the Rules of Appellate Procedure require her appeal to proceed 14 in accordance with Rule 12-505. Wakeland also involved a pro se petitioner who was 15 unaware that a Rule 1-077 appeal to th is Court is governed by Rule 12-505. In 16 Wakeland, we held that “[s]imply being confus ed or uncertain about the appropriate 17 procedure for seeking review is not the sort of unusual circumstance beyond the 18 control of a party that will justify an untimely filing.” Id. ¶ 25; see also id. (“The fact 196 that [the petitioner] did not know that any further appellate review would be governed 1 by Rule 12-505 does not excuse the late filing in this case.”). 2 Petitioner’s letter filed on December 12, 2011, which requested an extension 3 of time to file the docketing statement, wa s filed long after the due date for filing a 4 petition under Rule 12-505(C). Cf. Audette v. Montgomery , 2012-NMCA-011, ¶ 8, 5 __ N.M. __, 270 P.3d 1273 (holding that “because [the petitioners] sought an 6 extension of time to file their docketing statement beforetheir petition was due under 7 Rule 12-505(C) and because this Court granted the extension, we conclude their 8 petition is timely” (Emphasis added.)), cert. denied, __ -NMCERT-__, __ N.M. __, 9 __ P.3d __ (No. 30, 988, Dec. 21, 2011). This Court’s action in granting a motion for 10 extension of time to file a docketing statement does not demonstrate this Court’s 11 determination to grant the petition. Id. ¶ 9 (“We emphasize, however, that when a 12 party mistakenly files a notice of appeal and, after the time for filing a petition has 13 passed, the party seeks an extension of time to file the docketing statement, an order 14 from this Court extending the time to file the docketing statement will not 15 automatically excuse the untimely filing of the non-conforming document that is to 16 be construed as a petition. Extensions of time to file the docketing statement in this 17 Court are routinely granted, as the timel y filing of a docketing statement is not a 18 mandatory precondition to the exercise of th is Court’s jurisdicti on. . . ., a party cannot 19 rely on their own mistake in presenting their cas e as if it were an appeal as of right and 207 in obtaining a routine extension to file th e docketing statement as a basis for claiming 1 that the non-conforming petition was timely.”). 2 CONCLUSION 3 We hold that Petitioner’s notice of appeal filed in district court does not satisfy 4 the place of filing or the content/info rmation requirement s for non-conforming 5 documents. Moreover, while Petitioner’s docketing statement may be construed as 6 a petition for certiorari, it does not satisfy the timeliness requirements for a petition 7 for certiorari. Finally, Petitioner’s uncertainty about the proper procedure for seeking 8 review is not an unusual circumstance that will excuse the late filing. We deny the 9 petition. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

_______________________________ 12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

_________________________________ 15 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 16

_________________________________ 17 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 18