Opinion ID: 891680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rivera's Certiorari Petition Was Timely Filed.

Text: {11} Defendants take the position that we should decline to reach the merits of Rivera's appeal because she arguably was late in filing her petition for writ of certiorari. The time limits for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court are found in Rule 12-502(B) NMRA: The petition for writ of certiorari shall be filed with the Supreme Court clerk within thirty (30) days after final action by the Court of Appeals.... Final action by the Court of Appeals shall be the filing of its decision ... unless timely motion for rehearing is filed, in which event, final action shall be the disposition of the last motion for rehearing that was timely filed. {12} Under Rule 12-404(A) NMRA, a party must file a motion for rehearing within fifteen days of the appellate court's disposition of a case unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order. The time period is not jurisdictional because the rule explicitly permits the court to enlarge or shorten the fifteen day period. Rivera filed a motion for rehearing on March 8, 2010, eighteen days after the Court of Appeals issued its February 18, 2010, opinion. Although the Court of Appeals did not enter a separate order addressing the time for filing the motion for rehearing, its written order denying Rivera's motion for rehearing explicitly stated: Appellant having filed a motion for rehearing which has been considered by the Court. IT IS ORDERED that the motion for rehearing is denied. (Emphasis added.) {13} In the absence of an indication from the Court of Appeals that the motion for rehearing was rejected as untimely, we look to the order denying rehearing as the final action by the Court of Appeals under Rule 12-502(B). We have consistently followed a policy of construing [procedural] rules liberally, to the end that causes on appeal may be determined on the merits where it can be done without impeding or confusing administration or perpetrating injustice. Olguin v. State, 90 N.M. 303, 305, 563 P.2d 97, 99 (1977) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {14} The Court of Appeals superintends its own docket and has the discretion to indicate in an order whether a motion for rehearing has been denied on grounds of late filing. The Court of Appeals' order did not state that Rivera's motion had been denied for untimely filing; to the contrary, it explicitly represented that the Court of Appeals had considered the motion before denying it. Because Rivera filed her petition for writ of certiorari in this Court within thirty days after the Court of Appeals' final action, as required by Rule 12-502(B), we accept Rivera's petition for writ of certiorari as properly invoking this Court's certiorari jurisdiction and address the merits of this case.