Opinion ID: 891643
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Our Grant of Certiorari

Text: {19} Defendant claims, in his answer brief, that application of the 1997 amendment to unexpired criminal conduct violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10; N.M. Const. art. II, § 19. However, our grant of certiorari is limited to the question of legislative intent, namely, whether the Legislature intended the 1997 amendment to apply to unexpired crimes committed before its effective date. Defendant did not seek and, therefore, we did not grant certiorari review of the Court of Appeals' holding regarding the ex post facto clauses of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions. See Rule 12-502(F) (permitting any party to file a conditional cross-petition for certiorari, to be considered only if the Court grants the petition [for writ of certiorari]). Under the appellate rules, it is improper for this Court to consider any questions except those set forth in the petition for certiorari. State v. Sewell, 2009-NMSC-033, ¶ 14, 146 N.M. 428, 211 P.3d 885 (quoting Fikes v. Furst, 2003-NMSC-033, ¶¶ 8-9, 134 N.M. 602, 81 P.3d 545); see also Rule 12-502(C)(2)(b) (noting parenthetically that the Court will consider only the questions set forth in the petition); but see State v. Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030, ¶ 10, 131 N.M. 1, 33 P.3d 1 (holding that the Court may review a foundational issue which is integral to a complete and thorough analysis of the specific question presented in the petition for writ of certiorari). We therefore decline to review the merits of Defendant's constitutional claim.