This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 ANTONIO ROMERO, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3 v. No. 33,917 4 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, and 5 Administrative Hearing Officer 6 STAN HARADA, 7 Respondents-Appellees. 8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 9 Ted Baca, District Judge 10 Mark Keller 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Nicholas H. Bullock 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellees 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 SUTIN, Judge. 182 {1} Petitioner-Appellant Antonio Romero appeals from an order dismissing his 1 petition for writ of certiorari, by which he sought review of an administrative 2 determination. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in 3 which we proposed to affirm. Appellant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After 4 due consideration, we affirm. 5 {2} To summarize the pertinent background, Appellant initiated the underlying 6 proceedings by filing a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 1-075 NMRA 7 for the purpose of obtaining appellate review of a hearing officer’s probable cause 8 determination. The City moved to dismiss on grounds that the hearing officer’s 9 determination was not a final order. The district court gr anted the motion. This appeal 10 followed. 11 {3} By its plain language Rule 1-075 provides for review of final agency decisions. 12 Id. ; see also Rayellen Res., Inc. v. N.M. Cultural Props. Review Comm. , 2014-NMSC13 006, ¶ 9, 319 P.3d 639 (“Rule 1-075 . . . provide s for district court review of a final 14 agency decision.”). In this case, both the e xpress terms of the order and the context out 15 of which it arises clearly contemplate further proceedings on the merits, in the form 16 of formal forfeiture proceedi ngs. [RP 5] As such, the hearing officer’s determination 17 is not a final decision. See generally State v. Vaughn , 2005-NMCA-076, ¶ 18, 137 18 N.M. 674, 114 P.3d 354 (observing that, where an order “expressly contemplated 193 further proceedings” on the merits, it did not “dispose of all issues of law and fact to 1 the fullest extent possible under traditional finality rules” (alteration, internal 2 quotation marks, and citation omitted)). Inso far as the hearing officer’s order is not 3 final, it was not appealable to the district court pursuant to Rule 1-075. 4 {4} In his memorandum in opposition, Appellant does not appear to dispute the 5 foregoing. However, he c ontinues to urge that effectivejudicial review of the hearing 6 officer’s probable cause determination may be unavailable if an immediate appeal is 7 not authorized. [MIO 2-4] As we prev iously observed, similar concerns were 8 addressed by the New Mexico Supreme Court in City of Farmington v. Piñon-Garcia , 9 2013-NMSC-046, ¶ 2, 311 P.3d 446. The Court observed that “parties in courts of 10 limited jurisdiction who believe they are entitled to a dispositive order as a remedy for 11 a constitutional or procedural violation would effectively be deprived of the 12 safeguards of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions and our procedural 13 rules if a district court’s de novo review of the lower court’s ruling [is] bypassed in 14 favor of a trial de novo on the underlying complaint.” Id. Therefore, in de novo 15 proceedings, “the district courts can and mu st review, de novo, the merits of pretrial 16 motions brought before them on appealfrom courts not of record[.]” Id. ¶ 11. In order 17 to ensure meaningful review of the proceedings before th e lower tribunal, the district 18 court’s review of a lower tribunal’s grant or denial of a dispositive motion must be 194 “independent” ( i.e. , de novo), but “based on the reco rd on appeal” (including copies 1 of all papers and exhibits filed in the administrative tribunal, as well as any 2 transcripts). Id. ¶¶ 12, 18-19, 21. Applying the principles articulated in Piñon-Garcia , 3 we previously explained that Appellant is entitled to review of the hearing officer’s 4 probable cause determination, but that revi ew must take place in the course of the 5 forfeiture proceedings rather th an in a collateral proceeding such as the separate action 6 filed below. See Smith v. City of Santa Fe , 2007-NMSC-055, ¶ 24, 142 N.M. 786, 171 7 P.3d 300 (“We perceive no sound judicial po licy for allowing a party aggrieved by an 8 administrative decision to forego an available avenue of judicial review only to allow 9 that same party to initiate judicial review in another form . . . [i]ndeed, the efficient 10 administration of justice requires just the opposite.”). 11 {5} In his memorandum in opposition Appellant indicates that he generally “agrees” 12 with the foregoing. [MIO 3] Nevertheless, Appellant expresses c oncern that the City 13 and/or the district court presiding over the forfeiture proceeding might regard Piñon14 Garciaas inapplicable. [MIO 3-4] In light of this concern, Appellant suggests that 15 summary affirmance is inappropriate. [MIO 4] However, Appellant’s speculative 16 concern does not persuade us thata different result is warranted. 17 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 18 disposition and in this Opinion, we affirm the dismissal of the underlying action. 195 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

WE CONCUR: 4

_________________________________ 5 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 6

_________________________________ 7 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 8