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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper 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 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. No. 30,321 9 KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Keith Russell Judd 17 Texarkana, TX 18 Pro Se Appellant 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 SUTIN, Judge. 21 Defendant, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order denying his amended 22 motion to vacate dismissal and set the case for trial. We issued a notice of proposed 23 summary disposition, proposing to dismiss for lack of a timely and properly filed 242 notice of appeal. Defendant has responded to our notice with “objections to proposed 1 summary disposition.” We have consid ered Defendant’s response and remain 2 unpersuaded to accept the appeal as timely filed. We, therefore, dismiss. 3 To properly invoke this Court’s jurisdic tion, a party must comply with the 4 appellate rules governing the time and place in which to f ile the notice of appeal. See 5 Govich v. North Am. Sys., Inc. , 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 (1991); see also 6 Trujillo v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 273, 277-78, 871 P.2d 369, 373-74 (1994) (establishing 7 that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise 8 of jurisdiction to hear an appeal). Our Supreme Court has established that our 9 jurisdiction is not properly exercised where an appellant does not properly file a notice 10 of appeal with the clerk of the district c ourt within thirty days of the final order as 11 provided by Rules 12-202(A) NM RA and 12-201(A)(2) NMRA. See Lowe v. Bloom , 12 110 N.M. 555, 555, 798 P.2d 156, 156 (1990). 13 As we stated in our notice, Defendant s eeks to appeal from the district court’s 14 order denying his motion to vacate dismi ssal, which was entered on March 9, 2010. 15 [Supp. RP 393] Defendant submitted a notice of appeal in this Court on March 22, 16 2010. [Ct. App. file] There is no indi cation that Defendant has filed a notice of 17 appeal in district court, contrary to his obligation under Rule 12-202(A) (“An appeal 183 permitted by law as of right from the districtcourt shall be take n by filing a notice of 1 appeal with the district court clerk within the time allowed by Rule 12-201.”). 2 We routinely excuse the untimely and improperly filed notices of appeal in 3 criminal appeals we receive from representedcriminal defendants, by presuming the 4 ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Duran , 105 N.M. 231, 232, 731 P.2d 5 374, 375 (Ct. App. 1986); see also State v. Upchurch , 2006-NMCA-076, ¶ 4, 139 6 N.M. 739, 137 P.3d 679 (“We do . . . routinely excuse untimely appeals of represented 7 criminal defendants and parents whose parental rights have been terminated, 8 presuming the ineffective assistance of c ounsel.”). We do not, however, extend the 9
Duran presumption to appeals that are taken by parties without counsel. Cf. State v. 10 Peppers , 110 N.M. 393, 399, 796 P.2d 614, 620 (Ct. App. 1990) (refusing to extend 11 the conclusive presumption adopted in Duran to appeals from guilty or no contest 12 pleas). 13 Without presuming the ineffective assi stance of counsel, we treat Defendant’s 14 appeal as we would any other untimely and improper appeal, and we note that only 15 in exceptional circumstances beyond the cont rol of the parties will we entertain an 16 untimely appeal. See In re Estate of Newalla , 114 N.M. 290, 296, 837 P.2d 1373, 17 1379 (Ct. App. 1992) (s tating that “[o]ne such exceptional circumstance might be 18 reasonable reliance on a precedent indicating that the order not timely appealed was 194 not a final, appealable order”); see also Trujillo , 117 N.M. at 278, 871 P.2d at 374 1 (holding that exceptional circumstances are those beyond the control of the parties, 2 such as delay caused by judicial error). Ignorance of the procedural rules is not an 3 unusual circumstance. 4 Without any indication that this case presents unusual or exceptional 5 circumstances that would justify devi ation from our mandatory and rigidly 6 enforceable procedural rules, we proposed to hold that Defendant failed to properly 7 and timely file a notice of appeal in district court. Accordingly, we proposed to 8 dismiss. 9 We also noted that Defendant has filed anappeal in this Court raising the same 10 contentions. [RP 350-52, 386-88] In that appeal, we explained to Defendant that he 11 was not aggrieved by the district court’s or der denying his motion. [Id.] “Under the 12 law-of-the-case doctrine, if an appellate court has considered and passed upon a 13 question of law and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal question so 14 resolved will not be determined in a di fferent manner on a subs equent appeal.” State 15
v. Breit , 1996-NMSC-067, ¶ 10, 122 N.M. 655, 930 P.2d 792 (alteration omitted) 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We cautione d Defendant that as a pro 17 se litigant he “is held to th e same standard of conduct and compliance with court rules, 18 procedures, and orders as are members of the bar.” Newsome v. Farer , 103 N.M. 415, 195 419, 708 P.2d 327, 331 (1985). Under this standard, we warned Defendant that 1 filing appeals in this Court that have already been decided by this Court may result 2 in sanctions. 3 In response to our notice, Defendant asks this Court to adopt the prison filing 4 mailbox rule. [MIO 1] He contends that b ecause the proof of filing contained in the 5 notice of appeal indicates he mailed it to the district court on March 17, 2010, we 6 should presume that delivery was made and accept the notice of app eal as timely filed. 7 [Id.] 8 The so-called prison filing mailbox rule th at Defendant asks us to adopt is a 9 provision in Rule 4 of the Federal Rule s of Appellate Procedure. We are not 10 persuaded to adopt a federal rule in order to accept a notice of appeal as timely, 11 particularly where there is no right of app eal. As we have st ated, Defendant was not 12 aggrieved by the order refusing to vacate di smissal and we havealready made this 13 determination in a previous appeal. As a result, we dismiss. 14 Defendant asserts a new argument in his response to our notice. He contends 15 that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the prior appeal where we 16 decided that Defendant was not aggrieved and had no right to app eal. [MIO 2-3] If 17 Defendant was displeased with the result of the previous appeal, then he should have 186 appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. His ineffective assistance of appellate 1 counsel claim is not properly raised in this appeal. 2 Lastly, we note that Defendant has f iled a “supplemental brief in support of 3 objections to proposed summary dispositi on” and attached his amended motion to 4 vacate dismissal and set the case for public trial by jury and the district court order 5 that denied the motion. [Ct. App. File] Defendant has f iled an appeal from this new 6 order, and we will not consider these filings as part of this appeal. Because Defendant 7 sought the same relief in the amended mo tion, we remind Defendant that he is not 8 considered an aggrieved party with the right to appeal, where the charges against him 9 have been dismissed. Defendant’s continued filing of appeals in this Court that have 10 already been decided by this Court is highly improper and a waste of limited 11 judicial resources. We warn Defendant ag ain that we may impose sanctions for this 12 repeated conduct. 13 For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our notice, we dismiss. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

__________________________________ 16 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

_________________________________ 19 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 207 _________________________________ 1 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 2