This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om 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 AMANDA L. SINFUEGO, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 33,998 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 FOR CURRY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, 6 a political subdivision existing under the 7 laws of the State of New Mexico, 8 Respondent-Appellee. 9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 10 David P. Reeb, Jr., District Judge 11 Eric D. Dixon 12 Portales, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Doerr & Knudson, P.A. 15 Stephen Doerr 16 Portales, NM 17 for Appellee 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION 19 VANZI, Judge. 202 {1} Petitioner has sought certiorari review of the district court’s order dismissing 1 the petition for writ of certiorari and quashi ng its writ. We issued an order granting 2 the petition for writ of certiorari and issueda notice of proposed summary disposition, 3 proposing to reverse. Respondent has file d a memorandum in opposition to our notice. 4 We have considered Respondent’s response to our notice, and weare not persuaded 5 that Petitioner should have filed a direct appeal. We reverse the district court’s 6 dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari and remand for issuance of the writ. 7
{2} In response to our notice, Respondent argues that the Curry County Personnel 8 Policy confers a right to Petitioner to a “directappeal” in district court and, therefore, 9 the district court properly dismissed Pe titioner’s petition for writ of certiorari. [MIO 10 2] Respondent contends that neither Rule 1-074 NMRA nor Rule 1-075 NMRA 11 provide the proper mechanism for appeal . [MIO 2] Notably, Respondent does not 12 identify the governing rule and does not explain how Petitioner should have 13 proceeded. 14
{3} As we stated in our notice, the Curry County Policies and Procedures states that 15 an employee may appeal the decision of th e personnel hearing officer to the district 16 court within thirty days of the adverse d ecision and does not instruct the party to file 17 a notice of appeal. [RP 21] Importantly, review by the district court is limited to 18 reasons that mirror the certiorari review standards set forth inNMSA 1978, Section 193 39-3-1.1(D) (1999). [RP 20] Regardless of whether the Curry County Policies and 1 Procedures can be considered to have conferred a statutory right to appeal within the 2 meaning of Rule 1-074 or Rule 1-075, Pe titioner appropriately sought review under 3 certiorari standards in district court. See Rule 1-074(A) (“This rule governs appeals 4 from administrative agencies to the district courts when there is a statutory right of 5 review to the district court, whether by appeal, right to petition for a writ of certiorari, 6 or other statutory right of review.”); Rule 1-075(A) (“This rule governs writs of 7 certiorari to administrative officers and agencies pursuant to the New Mexico 8 Constitution when there is no statutory right to an appeal or other statutory right of 9 review.”). Most importantly, Petitioner sought review in a timely manner—sixteen 10 days after the letter decision from the personnel hearing officer—whether the time is 11 judged under the time requirements of the Curry County Policies and Procedures or 12 Rule 1-074(E), Rule 1-075(D), or Section 39-3-1.1(C). [RP 21, 29-30] 13
{4} “Generally, New Mexico courts have not been stringent about the form and 14 content requirements of documents filed in aneffort to seek appe llate review, so long 15 as the information provided in the non-c onforming document is adequate to convey 16 the basic intent of the party filing the document.” Wakeland v. N.M. Dep’t of 17 Workforce Solutions , 2012-NMCA-021, ¶ 7, 274 P.3d 766. In fact, New Mexico case 18 law encourages our courts to review timely appeals on their merits, where adequate 194 information is supplied in the timely document. See Audette v. City of Truth or 1 Consequences , 2012-NMCA-011, ¶ 1, 270 P.3d 1273 (construing a docketing 2 statement and notice of appeal, timely filed pursuant to an extension, as a non3 conforming petition for writ of certiorari and addressing the merits of the writ); 4 Wakeland , 2012-NMCA-021, ¶ 16 (holding that we should accept a docketing 5 statement that substantially complies withthe content requirements for a petition for 6 writ of certiorari as a non-conforming petiti on despite the fact that its form and 7 content do not precisely comply withthe requirements of Rule 12-505 NMRA); 8 Govich v. N. Am. Sys., Inc. , 1991-NMSC-061, ¶¶ 12-13, 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94 9 (1991) (holding that a notice of appeal was effective even though it did not meet 10 technical requirements because it complied with the jurisdictional time and place of 11 filing requirements, and the opposing party was not prejudiced by the defects in the 12 notice). In Govich , the New Mexico Supreme Court declared that“[t]he [long13 standing] policies in this state, and the purpose of the rule, are vi ndicated if the intent 14 to appeal a specific judgment fairly can be inferred from the notice of appeal and if 15 the appellee is not prejudiced by any mistake.” 1991-NMSC-061, ¶ 13. 16
{5} As we recognized in Wakeland , notices of appeal, prerequisites to proper 17 exercise of jurisdiction over a case, are re quired to contain very little information; in 18 fact, no information about the issues raised on appeal is required for a notice of appeal 19 to be effective. 2012-NMCA- 021, ¶ 14. Thus, to the exte nt that Petitioner may have 205 been required to file a notice of appeal and statement of appellate issues under Rule 1 1-074, the district court should have accep ted the petition for writ of certiorari as 2 sufficiently triggering its jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. 3
{6} It is not clear to this Court what Respondent understands a “direct appeal” to 4 entail in this case, and w hy Respondent believes that Petiti oner has attempted to make 5 an end-run around the rules by filing a petition for writ of certiorari. As we stated in 6 our notice, there seems to be no dispute th at the County is an administrative agency 7 and that it administrates rules governing its employees, including a system of remedies 8 for aggrieved employees. We can see no reason why the County’s decision to 9 terminate Petitioner’s employment and its re view process for that decision should be 10 considered anything other than an administrative, quasi-judicial proceeding. Appeals 11 from administrative agencies are governed by Section 39-3-1.1, and reversals are 12 limited to review under petition for writ of certiorari standards, which accords a high 13 degree of deference to the administrative agen cy. We fail to see anattempt at an end14 run around the rules. 15
{7} For the reasons stated in this Opinion and in our notice, we reverse the district 16 court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari and remand for the district court 17 to address the appeal on the merits. 18

{8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 196 __________________________________ 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

_________________________________ 4 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 5

_________________________________ 6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 7