Court Opinion

ID: 9562316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:26:19.800763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:17.619753
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM: By motion for rehearing appellant argues that the amendment of Art. VI, Sec. 2, N.M.Const., in 1965, wherein it was provided “that an aggrieved party shall have an absolute right to one appeal” worked a change in our previous decisions relied on in the opinion filed herein, to the effect that the timely taking of an appeal is jurisdictional. We do not agree, but believe it desirable to set forth our reasons. Article VI, Sec. 2, N.M.Const., as originally adopted, provided for appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of “all final judgments and decisions of the district courts,” with additional jurisdiction “as may be conferred by law” over appeals of “interlocutory orders and decisions of the district courts.” By the 1965 amendment, it was clearly provided that the Supreme Court was given jurisdiction over appeals of cases involving sentences to death or life imprisonment. Beyond this, appellate jurisdiction is to be exercised “as provided by law” with the proviso noted that an aggrieved party shall be entitled as a matter of right to one appeal. There can be no question that appellant’s entitlement to an appeal was provided for by law. As stated in the opinion, he could appeal to the Court of Appeals if the proceeding was one commenced after the effective date of ch. 24, § 1, N.M.S.L.1967 (§ 16-7-8, N.M.S.A.1953). If commenced before that date, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The time element is unchanged—it was and is thirty days from the entry of final judgment (Supreme Court Rule 5(1); § 21-2-1(5) (1), N.M.S.A.1953).  We perceive of no reason to consider that the amendment to the constitutional provision in any way altered the effect of the court rule fixing the time in which the guaranteed right to appeal should be exercised. That the appeal should be within a reasonable time which has been fixed at thirty days, as noted above, is not in any sense a deprivation of the guaranteed right. It is nothing more nor less than a procedural requirement which must be met to exercise the right. State v. Arnold, 51 N.M. 311, 183 P.2d 845 (1947). The authorities cited in the opinion still control. The motion for rehearing should be denied. It is so ordered.