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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 29,783 9 THOMAS TANNEHILL, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Robert Schwartz, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 for Appellee 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 WECHSLER, Judge. 232 The State seeks to appeal from an order granting Defendant’s motion to 1 dismiss. We issued a notice of proposedsummary disposition, proposing to dismiss 2 the appeal for want of a final order. The State has filed a memorandum in opposition, 3 which we have duly considered. Because weremain unpersuaded that the appeal is 4 properly before us at this juncture, we dismiss. 5 “With narrow and well-defined excepti ons, appellate court jurisdiction is 6 limited to timely appeals from final judgments or orders that are properly filed of 7 record with the lower court.” State v. Lohberger , 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 19, 144 N.M. 8 297, 187 P.3d 162. As of the time that the docketing statement was filed with this 9 Court, no written, final order had been entere d by the district court. Instead, the judge 10 previously assigned to the case had merely i ssued a letter reflecting his intent to grant 11 Defendant’s motion to dismiss. [RP 86-87] As we observed in the notice of proposed 12 summary disposition, such a letter cannot properly be regarded as a final, appealable 13 order. See Lohberger , 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 20 (observing th at a formal, final, written 14 order containing decretal language is require d, and recognizing that a court-filed letter 15 announcing a decision does not constitute a final order). 16 In its memorandum in opposition the State i ndicates that the district court has 17 recently filed a formal, written order dismissing the proceedings “pursuant to Judge 183 Schwartz’ ruling.” [MIO 1, attachment] This partially addresse s the finality problem. 1 Nevertheless, the appeal remains premature. 2 As we observed in the notice of proposedsummary disposition, the State filed 3 a timely motion for reconsideration belo w in which it argued that dismissal is 4 unwarranted, particularly inlight of the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision in 5 State v. Garza , 2009-NMSC-038, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387. [RP 88-95, 123-57] 6 Neither the recently-filed order of dismi ssal nor any other document in the record 7 before us reflects that the motion has been considered on its merits or expressly ruled 8 upon, as required. See Rule 5-121 NMRA, Committee Commentary for 2009 9 amendments (explaining that the 2009 amendmen t is “intended to make clear that the 10 automatic denial provision in [NMS A 1978,] Section 39-1-1 [(1917)] has no 11 application in cases subject to the Rule s of Criminal Procedure for the District 12 Courts,” and observing that the courts are required to promptly enter judgments or 13 orders expressly disposing of such motions). 14 We considered construing the recently-file d order of dismissal as an implicit 15 denial of the State’s motion for reconsider ation. However, wehave concluded that 16 such an approach would be improper. As indicated above, the courts are now required 17 to expressly rule on motions for reconsider ation. The district court’s order does not 184 satisfy this requirement. To the contrary, it merely indicates that the case is dismissed 1 “pursuant to Judge Schwartz’ ruling.” [MIO attachment] Insofar as Judge Schwartz’ 2 letter does not purport to address the St ate’s subsequently filed motion for 3 reconsideration, [RP 86-87] and insofar as the motion was not heard before Judge 4 Schwartz recused, [DS 7] the order of di smissal “pursuant to Judge Schwartz’ ruling” 5 cannot be regarded as a ruling on the merits of the motion for reconsideration. 6 The Supreme Court has recently explaine d that, “when a party makes a motion 7 [pursuant to Section 39-1-1] challenging the di strict court’s determination of the rights 8 of the parties . . . [the determination] is not final, and the time for filing an appeal does 9 not begin to run, until the district court disposes of the motion.” Grygorwicz v. 10 Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865. Insofar as the district 11 court has yet to rule on the State’s motion fo r reconsideration, we conclude that the 12 underlying order is not final, and the time for filing an appeal has not begun to run. 13 See id. 14 Accordingly, for the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

_______________________________ 17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 185 WE CONCUR: 1

_____________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

_____________________________ 4 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 5