Opinion ID: 2570068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State's Right to Appeal

Text: {10} Generally, the State cannot appeal proceedings from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal case absent a constitutional provision or statute conferring that right. State v. Giraudo, 99 N.M. 634, 636, 661 P.2d 1333, 1335 (Ct.App.1983); accord Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 7, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040 (stating that the State's right to appeal exists only by constitutional provision, statute, or rule). The State's right to appeal an adverse ruling in a criminal proceeding is conferred in our State Constitution, Article VI, Section 27, entitling parties to appeal final judgments and decisions from the magistrate court. Giraudo, 99 N.M. at 636, 661 P.2d at 1335. This right is codified in our statutes and addressed in our Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate Courts and Criminal Forms. See § 35-13-1(authorizing appeals from a final order issued by the magistrate court); Rule 6-703 (right to appeal an order from the magistrate court, procedure); see also Rule 9-607 NMRA (Notice of Appeal form). The right to appeal is predicated on a final order, decision, or judgment from the magistrate court. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 27 (Appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final judgments and decisions....); § 35-13-1; Rule 6-703; see also Rule 9-607 (showing in our form Notice of Appeal that a party appealing from magistrate court should appeal to the district court from the (judgment) (final order) of the (magistrate) ... court. ...). {11} An order of dismissal is a type of appealable final order. Particularly, an order of dismissal on procedural grounds or in a manner that does not amount to an acquittal is an appealable final order. See State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC-033, 144 N.M. 297, 187 P.3d 162 (reversing dismissal of State's appeal from metropolitan court because State was entitled to appeal a final order dismissing its case for failure to comply with the court's discovery order, a procedural ground); Smith v. Love, 101 N.M. 355, 355-56, 683 P.2d 37, 37-38 (1984) (construing dismissal of criminal action for failure to prosecute as appealable final order); Giraudo, 99 N.M. at 636, 661 P.2d at 1335 (holding that dismissal for failure to timely prosecute is a final judgment that the State may appeal to the district court). {12} The State claims that the order in this case is an appealable final order of dismissal and Defendant counters that it is a non-final, unappealable order of suppression based on no probable cause to arrest Defendant. Defendant advances that the order from the magistrate court should have been an order of suppression of the State's evidence flowing from the unlawful arrest pursuant to Hawkins, 1999-NMCA-126, ¶ 16, 128 N.M. 245, 991 P.2d 989 (`Fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine generally requires suppression of ... evidence obtained after an arrest made without probable cause.). {13} By contrast, in Heinsen, this Court held that there is no constitutional or statutory basis for an appeal by the State from a suppression order of a magistrate court. 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 1, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040. We stated that New Mexico has traditionally viewed suppression orders as interlocutory rulings on evidentiary matters, rather than final, appealable orders. Id. ¶ 12 (citing State v. Alvarez, 113 N.M. 82, 83-84, 823 P.2d 324, 325-26; Giraudo, 99 N.M. at 636, 661 P.2d at 1335; State v. Garcia, 91 N.M. 131, 571 P.2d 123 (Ct.App. 1977)). Because there is no authority providing for an appeal of a suppression order to the district court from the magistrate court, district courts are without jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. Id. ¶ 1.