Court Opinion

ID: 9563507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:40:33.977702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:52.813511
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). The time has come to alert trial judges and attorneys on important matters related to appeals from final judgments. The reason is that the law and procedural rules on appeal are often violated. Should we cure the errors made? (a)After Appeal, the Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction to File an Amended Judgment. On February IS, 1972, the trial court entered final judgment that Deats’ sentence in 1969 was valid. On March 8, 1972, Deats, pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment. On March 24, 1972, the trial court filed an amended judgment in which it “FURTHER ORDERED that the sentence of February 11, 1967 and the sentence of October 10, 1969 should not be construed as cumulative sentences.” Deats’ notice of appeal took jurisdiction of the case away from the trial court except for purposes of perfecting the appeal. The trial court had no power to enter an amended judgment. State v. Maples, 82 N.M. 36, 474 P.2d 718 (Ct.App.1970). Nevertheless, the amended judgment did not materially change the substance of the original judgment so that the time for review began to run from February 15, 1972. Rice v. Gonzales, 79 N.M. 377, 44 1 P.2d 288 (1968). (b)Deats’ Statement of Proceedings was Erroneous on Notice of Appeal. On April 8, 1972, Deats’ trial attorney filed a notice of appeal from the original judgment of February 15, 1972. This, of course, was late and of no value. Section 21-2-1(5) (1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). Deats’ Statement of Proceedings merely said: “Notice of Appeal was entered April 5, 1972. (Tr. 19)” This was erroneous. Section 21-2-1(15) (16) (a) provides that the statement of proceedings “shall include a concise statement showing date notice of appeal was filed and the date on which time for appeal commenced to run under Rule 5.” [Emphasis added] The word “shall” is mandatory. Section 1 — 2—2(1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 1). If the Deats’ Statement of Proceedings had said: “The time for appeal began to run February 15, 1972,” the case should be dismissed sua sponte. Rice v. Gonzales, supra. However, we could overlook this obvious error by substituting Deats’ notice of appeal of March 8, 1972. Continuous errors of this kind is what aids in reducing the stature of judges and lawj'ers in the public eye. (c)The Trial Court did not err in its Original Judgment. Consecutive v. concurrent criminal sentences is a novel question in New Mexico. No New Mexico statute has been enacted which changed the common law rule. The common law rule is stated in Swope v. Cooksie, 59 N.M. 429, 285 P.2d 793 (1955): In the absence of statute [,] at common law two or more sentences are to be served concurrently unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Swope opinion now appears in 24B C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1996(2) p. 662, Note 55. The trial court in the 1969 judgment stated, “ ‘these sentences to begin when the defendant has served any other sentences which has [sic] been previously imposed and for which he has served or must serve time.’ ” The trial court “otherwise” ordered consecutive sentences. This was within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Crouch, 75 N.M. 533, 407 P.2d 671 (1965). There was no abuse of discretion.