Opinion ID: 2565663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: new mexico mootness doctrine

Text: {14} In Gunaji, we stated that, [a]s a general rule, this Court does not decide moot cases. Id. ¶ 9; see also Mowrer v. Rusk, 95 N.M. 48, 51, 618 P.2d 886, 889 (1980). A case is moot when no actual controversy exists, and the court cannot grant actual relief. Gunaji, 2001-NMSC-028, ¶ 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We found the election contest at issue in Gunaji moot because the terms of office had expired, and an election contest becomes moot when the term for the corresponding office expires. Id. {15} However, an exception to the mootness doctrine allows for review of moot cases that present issues which are capable of repetition yet evade review. Id. ¶ 10. For example in Gunaji, we found that issues regarding the means of contesting an election and the proper remedy for an incorrect ballot face that may have resulted in a number of incorrect votes capable of changing the outcome of an election met the exception because human error might cause their repetition, and the issues would likely evade review because the affected terms of office might expire before the Court could decide the issues. Id.; see also Mowrer, 95 N.M. at 51, 618 P.2d at 889. {16} This Court has rejected the more restrictive federal mootness standard which requires that the specific contests must be likely to occur again. Gunaji, 2001-NMSC-028, ¶ 11, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008 (emphasis added). Rather, we have held that an issue can be capable of repetition . . . even though the parties are unlikely to litigate the same issue again. It is sufficient that the issue be capable of repetition in some future lawsuit; the identity of the parties is irrelevant. Id. Therefore, this Court in Gunaji reviewed the issues on the merits because, although the specific parties were unlikely to ever litigate these issues again, the issues [we]re still capable of repetition in future election contests. Id. {17} The district court found that Garcia's petition was moot based on the Tenth Circuit case of Aragon v. Shanks , which analyzed the New Mexico law at issue in the instant case in the context of a federal habeas corpus petition. 144 F.3d 690. In Aragon, the Tenth Circuit held that Earned Meritorious Deductions are applicable only to terms of incarceration and parole. Id. at 692. The Attorney General asks us to adopt this same analysis and find that Garcia's case is moot because Garcia has already completed both his incarceration and parole. We find Aragon misapprehended the relevant New Mexico law by failing to recognize the dual credit nature of New Mexico's statutory parole and probation system, discussed below, and thus find it inapposite to our resolution of the instant case. Because the procedural due process violation Garcia alleges impacts his current incarceration, we hold that Garcia's case is not moot and that by reversing and remanding to the district court, we are able to grant him actual relief. [2]