This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 29,509 9 DEBORAH PULITI, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 12 Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 M. Anne Kelly, Assistant Attorney General 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 McGraw & Strickland, LLC 19 Mollie C. McGraw 20 Las Cruces, NM 21 for Appellee 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 WECHSLER, Judge. 242 This Court issued a fifth notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to 1 affirm the district court’s dismissal of the charges against Defendant in light of our 2 Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Martinez , 2011-NMSC-010, 149 N.M. 370, 249 3 P.3d 82, and State v. Episcopo , No. 32,044, slip op. (N.M. Sup. Ct. Mar. 4, 2011), in 4 accordance with the mandate issued by our Supreme Court. Based on the reasoning 5 contained in our fifth notice of pr oposed disposition, we conclude (1) State v. 6 Savedra ’s, 2010-NMSC-025, 148 N.M. 301, 236 P. 3d 20, abrogation of Rule 5-604 7 applies in this case, and (2) based on the inherent authority of the district court to 8 control its docket and sanction the State fo r failing to respond to discovery requests, 9 the district court’s dismissal of the charges against Defendant should be affirmed. 10 The State has filed a memorandum in oppos ition to this Court’s fifth notice of 11 proposed disposition. The State takes issue with this Court distinguishing the facts 12 of the present case from the relevant facts in Episcopo . [MIO 7] To the extent the 13 State contends that Episcopo is not distinguishable, we disagree. In Episcopo , the 14 Supreme Court pointed out that “the State ha d engaged in no dilato ry behavior of any 15 kind.” Id. slip op. at 6. Here, the State conced es that the district court “relied upon 16 its findings regarding the requests for witne ss interviews to reverse its ruling and find 17 no good cause for the rule date extension.” [MIO 10] As we stated in our fifth notice 18 of proposed disposition, unlike Episcopo , “the State engaging in behavior that could 193 be construed as dilatory calls into questi on the district court’s inherent authority to 1 control its docket and sanc tion parties for their behavior.” [Fifth CN 7-8] 2 To the extent the State points out thatthere are conceptualdifferences between 3 “good cause” for an extension under the six-month rule and this Court’s analysis of 4 the district court’s decision as within its inherent authority to control its docket and 5 impose sanction for dilatory tactics, we are unpersuaded that our review of whether 6 dismissal was within the district court’s authority is inappropriate. Ultimately, the 7 inquiry this Court is faced with is whether the district court erred in denying the State 8 the relief it requested. See In re Estate of Heeter, 113 N.M. 691, 695, 831 P.2d 990, 9 994 (Ct. App. 1992) (“On appeal , error will not be correctedif it will not change the 10 result.”); State v. Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828 11 (holding that the appellate court will affirm the district court’s decision if it is right for 12 any reason, so long as it is not unfair to the appellant). Although the State points out 13 that Defendant still has the remedy of a speedy trial claim, [MIO 13] see Savedra , 14 2010-NMSC-025, ¶ 8 (stating thata defendant may raise speedy trial violations after 15 the case is refiled in district court), this is not the only m echanism for the district court 16 to dismiss a case where the di strict court has found the Stat e to have delayed the case 17 by failing to respond to discovery requests. 18 Finally, to the extent the State relies on si x-month rule cases to argue that it was 194 an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny it an extension, the State’s 1 argument is unavailing. This Court’s fifth notice of proposed disposition does not rely 2 on the now-withdrawn six-month rule in affirming the district court’s dismissal. The 3 State’s reliance on six-month ru le cases therefore fails to address the Court’s analysis. 4 Because we are unpersuaded that the State has demonstrated either error in law or in 5 fact with this Court’s fifth notice of proposed disposition, see State v. Ibarra , 116 6 N.M. 486, 489, 864 P.2d 302, 305 (Ct. App. 1993) (“A party opposing summary 7 disposition is required to come forward and sp ecifically point out errors in fact and/or 8 law.”), we affirm the district court’s denialof the State’s motion for an extension and 9 the dismissal of the charges against Defendant. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

_______________________________ 12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

_______________________________ 15 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 16

_______________________________ 17 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 18