Court Opinion

ID: 9630517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:12:51.579036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:39.674678
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The trial court dismissed defendant’s appeal from a judgment of the municipal court, acting under the authority of Municipal Court Rule 39(j). The rule provides: The district court shall try the appeal within six months after the filing of the notice of appeal. Any appeal pending in the district court six months after the filing of the notice of appeal without disposition shall be dismissed and the cause remanded to the municipal court for enforcement of its judgment. Municipal Rule 39(k), designates the procedure for obtaining extensions of time for hearing municipal appeals and specifies that a party seeking an extension beyond the six month appeal limit must within such time seek an extension upon a proper showing of good cause. Such rule recites in pertinent part: “No other extension of time shall be allowed.” See State v. Rivera, 92 N.M. 155, 584 P.2d 202 (Ct.App.1978). Since under the doctrine of separation of powers, the matter of expediting the flow of criminal cases through the courts is peculiarly a judicial function, extra-judicial stipulations not in conformity with the express provisions for obtaining extensions of the time requirements prescribed by the rule are not binding on the district court. See State ex rel. Delgado v. Stanley, 83 N.M. 626, 495 P.2d 1073 (1972). I would affirm the order of the trial court.