Opinion ID: 2639474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: summary of relevant facts and procedure

Text: {2} On June 18, 2001, a criminal complaint was filed against Defendant, alleging that he committed aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug, drove on a revoked or suspended license, possessed a controlled substance, and had a headlight violation. Judge Walton was assigned the case on this same day. On June 20, 2001, Defendant was arraigned on the charges. On July 13, 2001, the Public Defender's office formally entered its appearance on behalf of Defendant. During an August 16, 2001 pretrial hearing, Judge Walton granted Defendant's request to interview the investigating police officers. The matter was scheduled for trial before Judge Walton on August 29, 2001. During the pretrial hearing, the State asked the court for a continuance because officer interviews had not been conducted. Judge Walton reset the criminal trial for September 24, 2001, approximately three months after the complaint was filed. {3} At the rescheduled September 24, 2001 trial, the State again moved for a continuance because the officer interviews had yet to be conducted due to an officer's illness. Defendant's attorney objected to the continuance and asked the court to dismiss the case without prejudice. Judge Walton denied the State's motion for a continuance and granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. The State immediately notified both the court and Defendant that it intended to refile the charges. {4} On November 1, 2001, the State filed a Notice of Re Filing of Dismissed Complaint (notice of re-filing) in metropolitan court. Complying with Metropolitan Court Rule 7-506(C) NMRA 2003, the State noted in the refiling that Judge Walton was the originally assigned judge, provided the metropolitan court clerk with the originally assigned case number of the dismissed complaint, and specified the reasons why the charges had been dismissed. The complaint accompanying the notice of re-filing was identical to the complaint filed on June 18, 2001, and was conspicuously marked re-file. The court clerk assigned the original case number and the originally assigned judge, Judge Walton, to the refiled case. {5} On November 19, 2001, Judge Walton rearraigned Defendant, but noted that the rearraignment proceeding would not be conducted under the same formalities as the original arraignment. Defendant asked Judge Walton to calculate the 182-day rule. The Judge determined the last day for complying with the 182-day rule would be December 17, 2001. Judge Walton then scheduled the trial for that exact date. Nine days later, Defendant filed a notice of excusal of Judge Walton, and the case was randomly reassigned to Judge Clinton, who scheduled a trial for December 27, 2001. Defendant then argued that the charges should be dismissed with prejudice because the 182-day rule had expired ten days earlier. Judge Clinton denied Defendant's motion and held that the notice of excusal was invalid because it was not timely filed and because Defendant had asked Judge Walton to exercise discretion during the original proceeding. See Rule 7-106(C), (D) NMRA 2003. {6} The case was remanded to Judge Walton, and Defendant again filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of a 182-day rule violation. Judge Walton asked the parties to brief the matter and provide her with legal authority. After due consideration, Judge Walton denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the notice of excusal was not timely filed. {7} On February 4, 2002, Defendant filed a petition for writ of prohibition and writ of superintending control in the Second Judicial District Court. The district court held that the refiled complaint constituted a new case, and therefore Defendant had the right to file a notice of excusal of Judge Walton within ten days of his arraignment on the refiled charges. The district court also held that Judge Walton's discretionary rulings under the original charges could not be considered. The two metropolitan court judges appealed the district court order, and our Court of Appeals certified the question to us because this case involves matters of substantial public interest and matters of superintending control. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3 (The supreme court shall have ... superintending control over all inferior courts; it shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, error, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari, injunction and all other writs necessary or proper for the complete exercise of its jurisdiction....).