Opinion ID: 2623531
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Due Process Claim

Text: {5} Under Rule 12-216(A) NMRA 2004, in order to preserve a claim for appellate review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked. In State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1, we clarified how, under our interstitial approach to interpreting the State Constitution, a party must fairly invoke a ruling that our constitution provides greater protection than its federal counterpart. If the relevant state constitutional provision has previously been interpreted to provide greater rights, the litigant need only: (1) assert[] the constitutional principle that provides the protection sought under the New Mexico Constitution, and (2) show[] the factual basis needed for the trial court to rule on the issue. Id. ¶ 22. Where, however, there is no established precedent for interpreting the relevant state constitutional provision differently from its federal counterpart, a party also must assert in the trial court that the state constitutional provision at issue should be interpreted more expansively than the federal counterpart and provide reasons for interpreting the state provision differently from the federal provision. Id. ¶ 23. Although Gomez was a criminal case, its preservation requirement is an interpretation of Rule 12-216 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we can see no reason why it should not apply to a constitutional argument concerning a license-revocation proceeding. For the following reasons, we hold that Petitioner has not satisfied the Gomez requirements for preserving his argument under the state due process clause. {6} In both his initial pleading to the district court, styled a petition for writ of certiorari, and his subsequent statement of appellate issues, Petitioner did not mention the state constitution, but instead argued that the denial of a hearing violated his right to procedural due process because he cannot be said to have knowingly and intelligently waived his right to the hearing when he did not understand the notice. The district court rejected this argument, concluding that Petitioner was on inquiry notice when he received the English notice, which required him to take steps to have the notice translated. Having failed to do so, he cannot complain that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to the hearing. {7} In his brief-in-chief to the Court of Appeals, Petitioner made assertions relating to New Mexico's unique characteristics, but did not refer to the state constitution or argue that it should provide greater protections than the federal constitution. Instead, Petitioner simply argued that, because the notice requirement of due process requires that efforts at notice be appropriate to the circumstances, New Mexico's unique characteristics are relevant to that inquiry. Significantly, in his reply brief to the Court of Appeals, Petitioner for the first time describes the demographic composition of New Mexico's population, citing to the United States Census. {8} Thus, Petitioner's argument that the New Mexico Constitution should offer greater protections than the federal constitution is made for the first time to this Court. Under Rule 12-216(A) and Gomez, this argument was not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to address it. Indeed, this case perfectly illustrates the purposes behind the Gomez preservation requirement. As part of the argument that New Mexico has distinctive state characteristics that should result in a different interpretation of the State Constitution, Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19, Petitioner cites demographic data from the 2000 Census to argue that New Mexico is a predominately Spanish-speaking state. The State, however, disputes both Petitioner's figures and his interpretation of them. Because Petitioner did not pursue this argument in the district court, the Census numbers are not a part of the record on appeal, nor are findings of fact resolving the disputed significance of those figures. We thus have no way of resolving this factual dispute, which, under Gomez, should have been brought first to the district court.