Court Opinion

ID: 9688108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:08:02.965962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:43.138272
License: Public Domain

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: August 24, 2023

No. S-1-SC-39132

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

       Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY MARTINEZ,

       Defendant-Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
Brett R. Loveless, District Judge

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Thomas J. Lewis, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM

for Petitioner

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Emily C. Tyson-Jorgenson, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Respondent

                      DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

PER CURIAM.

{1}    WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by the Court upon grant of
Defendant Anthony Martinez’s petition for writ of certiorari to review whether the district
court properly dismissed Defendant’s battery upon a peace officer charge and whether
the Court of Appeals erred by failing to consider scienter as an element of battery upon
a peace officer warranting dismissal under the right for any reason doctrine;
{2}   WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and being otherwise fully
informed on the issues and applicable law;

{3}    WHEREAS, the district court relied upon State v. Montaño, 2020-NMSC-009,
468 P.3d 838, in reaching its determination that Deputy Mauricio was not, as a matter of
law, engaged in the lawful discharge of his duties when he restrained Defendant
because Deputy Mauricio was not in uniform or driving an appropriately marked law
enforcement vehicle;

{4}    WHEREAS, in Montaño, this Court did not address the charge of battery upon a
peace officer, instead defining and applying “uniformed law enforcement officer” and
“appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle,” statutory elements of aggravated
fleeing from a law enforcement officer. See 2020-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 1, 13; NMSA 1978, §
30-22-1.1(A) (2003) (criminalizing fleeing “after being given a . . . signal, by a uniformed
law enforcement officer in an appropriately marked law enforcement vehicle” (emphasis
added));

{5}    WHEREAS, the charge of battery upon a peace officer, by contrast, does not
contain such elements. NMSA 1978, § 30-22-24 (1971) (“Battery upon a peace officer is
the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of a peace officer
while he is in the lawful discharge of his duties, when done in a rude, insolent or angry
manner.”);

{6}    WHEREAS, the district court improperly relied upon Montaño for a proposition
Montaño did not consider and by applying Montaño to this case, effectively read
requirements into the battery upon a peace officer statute that do not exist. See
Dominguez v. State, 2015-NMSC-014, ¶ 16, 348 P.3d 183 (“The general rule is that
cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (alteration omitted)); State ex
rel. Barela v. N. M. State Bd. of Educ., 1969-NMSC-038, ¶ 7, 80 N.M. 220, 453 P.2d
583 (“We are not permitted to read into a statute language which is not there.”);

{7}    WHEREAS, we decline to address Defendant’s scienter argument under the right
for any reason doctrine because it would be fundamentally unfair to dismiss the State’s
claim when Defendant’s motion to dismiss at the district court relied solely upon Deputy
Mauricio’s off-duty status, arguing that dismissal was proper as a matter of law even if
“every other fact is proven true,” including that Defendant “knew [Deputy Mauricio] was
a peace officer.” See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 30, 416 P.3d 264
(explaining that the right for any reason doctrine only applies in circumstances where
affirming a district court ruling on a new ground would not be unfair); and

{8} WHEREAS, the Court has chosen to exercise its discretion under Rule 12-405(B)
NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than by formal opinion;

{9}     NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Court of Appeals
is affirmed.

{10}   IT IS SO ORDERED.
C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice