Opinion ID: 2635233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: this court has jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in a case involving the death penalty

Text: {6} Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution provides that our appellate jurisdiction extends to appeals from district court judgments imposing a sentence of life imprisonment or death, and as may be provided by law. N.M. Const. art. VI, § 2. The phrase as may be provided by law means that our Constitution or Legislature must vest us with appellate jurisdiction  we cannot create jurisdiction ourselves through our rule-making authority. See State ex rel. N.M. Judicial Standards Comm'n v. Espinosa, 2003-NMSC-017, ¶ 28, 134 N.M. 59, 73 P.3d 197; Seth D. Montgomery & Andrew S. Montgomery, Jurisdiction as May Be Provided by Law: Some Issues of Appellate Jurisdiction in New Mexico, 36 N.M. L. Rev. 215, 216-17 (2006). Thus, since this interlocutory appeal is not a judgment from a district court imposing a sentence of life imprisonment or death, our jurisdiction must be found elsewhere in the Constitution or legislation. {7} The State directs us to various statutes, the most important of which being Section 34-5-14. See NMSA 1978, § 34-5-14 (1972) (setting forth the scope of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction); see also id. § 34-5-10 (1966) (conferring jurisdiction on cases transferred to this Court by the Court of Appeals); id. §§ 39-7-1 to -13 (1997) (conferring jurisdiction on cases certified to this Court by other courts). Among other things, Section 34-5-14 provides that our appellate jurisdiction extends to all cases where appellate jurisdiction is not specifically vested by law in the court of appeals. § 34-5-14(A). The State points out that the statute vesting appellate jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals provides that the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over criminal actions, except those in which a judgment of the district court imposes a sentence of death or life imprisonment. NMSA 1978, § 34-5-8(A)(3) (1983). The State concludes that this interlocutory appeal is taken as part of a criminal action and that, since it does not involve a judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment or death, jurisdiction over this matter is vested exclusively in the Court of Appeals. {8} Smallwood claims that State v. Ogden, 118 N.M. 234, 880 P.2d 845 (1994), establishes our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals involving pre-trial death penalty procedures. In Ogden, we decided on interlocutory appeal that Article VI, Section 3, which vests us with superintending control over lower state courts, gave us the inherent power to authorize district courts to determine pre-trial whether probable cause exists to support aggravating circumstances. Id. at 239-40, 880 P.2d at 850-51; see N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3. Although Ogden came to us on interlocutory appeal from the district court, the jurisdictional issue was simply not addressed as it appears that neither party raised the issue. We take this opportunity to analyze our interlocutory jurisdiction in death penalty cases. {9} We begin our search for interlocutory jurisdiction in the one statute dealing specifically with appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in criminal cases. See NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3 (1972). Subsection A of that statute sets out the general jurisdictional rule that [i]n any criminal proceeding in district court an appeal may be taken by the defendant to the supreme court or court of appeals, as appellate jurisdiction may be vested by law in these courts. § 39-3-3(A). Subsection A contains three clarifying paragraphs, the last of which provides that the defendant may file an interlocutory appeal in the appropriate appellate court. § 39-3-3(A)(3). {10} By using the language in the appropriate appellate court, we believe the legislature intended this Court to have jurisdiction over certain interlocutory appeals in criminal cases. [2] Had the legislature intended the Court of Appeals to entertain all of a defendant's interlocutory appeals, it simply would have stated so. The question thus becomes: over which interlocutory appeals in criminal cases did the legislature intend for this Court to have jurisdiction? The answer lies in Section 39-3-3(A), which provides that a criminal defendant may appeal to this Court when appellate jurisdiction is vested by law in this Court. Since we are vested by law with exclusive appellate jurisdiction in cases involving a sentence of life imprisonment or death, it is clear to us that the legislature conferred this Court with jurisdiction over a criminal defendant's interlocutory appeal in cases where a sentence of life imprisonment or death could be imposed. An interlocutory appeal by its very nature involves issues which are not contained in a final judgment. Yet, in its wisdom, the legislature has provided a mechanism for early appeals in criminal cases when, in the judgment of both the lower court and the appellate court, appellate review will advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. {11} Reading Section 39-3-3 any other way would make a nullity of the statute. See State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 18, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (We are generally unwilling to construe one provision of a statute in a manner that would make other provisions null or superfluous.). An interlocutory appeal may be taken only from a district court. See Black's Law Dictionary 106 (8th ed. 2004). Moreover, the only criminal cases that can be appealed directly to this Court from a district court are those cases where a sentence of life imprisonment or death has been imposed. Thus, since we are clearly authorized to hear interlocutory appeals in criminal matters, we conclude that the legislature intended for us to have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in situations where a defendant may possibly be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. See State v. Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030, ¶ 27, 131 N.M. 1, 33 P.3d 1 (We read . . . legislation in its entirety and `construe each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole . . . .' (quoting State ex rel. Klineline v. Blackhurst, 106 N.M. 732, 735, 749 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1988)).