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 Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-Appellee, 8 v. NO. 30,218 9 J. TYRONE RIORDAN, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 12 Karen L. Parsons, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 James Cowan, Assistant Attorney General 16 Alamogordo, NM 17 for Appellee 18 J. Tyrone Riordan 19 Carrizozo, NM 20 Pro Se Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 FRY, Chief Judge. 23 Defendant appeals from the district court’s oral rulings made during a February 24 11, 2010, hearing. These rulings apparently included (1) the district court’s refusal 252 to recuse, (2) the district court refused to dismiss Defendant’s cases with prejudice 1 pursuant an alleged violation of his speedy trial rights, and (3) the district court’s 2 refusal to allow Defendant to receive and use a lap-top computer so that he does not 3 have to rely on the Public Defender’s Office to view his discovery materials. 4 [Defendant’s DS] We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. 5 DISCUSSION 6 In the calendar notice, this Court proposedto dismiss the appeal for lack of a 7 final order on the basis that the district court’s oral rulings in these pending criminal 8 cases are not written, final, and appealable orders, and, therefore, this Court lacks 9 jurisdiction to review them at this time. [CN1] See, e.g. , Harrison v. ICX, Ill.-Cal. 10 Express, Inc. , 98 N.M. 247, 249, 647 P.2d 880, 882 (C t. App. 1982) (stating that a 11 party may only appeal from a written order), abrogated on other grounds by Martinez 12 v. Friede , 2004-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 25-26, 135 N.M. 171, 86 P.3d 596. In addition, we 13 pointed out that in a criminal case, generally the final judgment is the judgment and 14 sentence or an order dismissing all the charges against the defendant. State v. Garcia , 15 99 N.M. 466, 471, 659 P.2d 918, 923 (Ct. App. 1983). We further indicated that 16 under New Mexico law, “[w]hether an orde r is a ‘final order’ within the meaning of 17 the statute is a jurisdictional question that an appellate court is required to raise on its 18 own motion.” See Khalsa v. Levinson , 1998-NMCA-110, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 680, 964 193 P.2d 844. Finally, we remi nded Defendant that New Mexico law provides that an 1 order or judgment is not considered final unl ess all issues of la w and fact have been 2 determined and the case disposed of by the di strict court to the fullest extent possible. 3 See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 236, 824 P.2d 1033, 1038 4 (1992). 5 In this case, there is no written order in the record proper on any of these 6 matters. Even if there was a written order inthe file, the district court’s rulings on 7 these issues are interlocutory and non-final orders that do not practically dispose of 8 the criminal charges in thes e cases that include Defendant ’s pending trials for murder 9 (CR -2007-80), rape/delinquency of a child (CR-2007-113), and escape from custody 10 (CR-2007-193). Even if reduced to writing, none of these rulings has been certified 11 by the district court for interlocutory appeal pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-3 12 (A) (1972). 13 Defendant has filed a memorandum inopposition to this Court’s proposed 14 dismissal of the appeal for lack of a fi nal order. [MIO] While we have duly 15 considered his memorandum, we note that De fendant does not provide this Court with 16 any written orders on the district court’s oral rulings in which the issues he raises on 17 appeal have been certified for interlocutory appeal. The f act remains, therefore, that 18 this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the issues Defendant raises on 194 appeal. To the extent that Defendant con tinues to argue the merits of the issues on 1 appeal in the memorandum [MIO 11-14], ther efore, we decline to reach them, being 2 without jurisdiction to do so. To the extent that Defendant cont ends his constitutional 3 rights are adversely affected by the rulings [M IO 2], and that he is frustrated with the 4 rulings of the district cour t, delays in discovery, and other issues [MIO 3-11], we 5 remind Defendant that he has a constitutional right to appeal all of the district court’s 6 written orders upon entry of the final judgment in this case. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons discussed above and inthe calendar notice, we dismiss this 9 appeal for lack of a final order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 13 WE CONCUR: 14

15 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 16

17 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 185