Court Opinion

ID: 9408789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 17:07:40.427654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.788581
License: Public Domain

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court.
     Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by
     the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published.
     The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.

 1          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

 2   Filing Date: July 13, 2023

 3   No. S-1-SC-39399

 4   TERESA KINCAID,

 5          Petitioner-Appellee,

 6   v.

 7   ROBERTA LUCERO-ORTEGA, Warden,

 8          Respondent-Appellant.

 9   APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CIBOLA COUNTY
10   Amanda Sanchez Villalobos, District Judge

11   Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
12   Emily Bowen, Assistant Attorney General
13   Santa Fe, NM

14   for Appellant

15   Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
16   Caitlin C.M. Smith, Associate Appellate Defender
17   Santa Fe, NM

18   for Appellee

19                      DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

20   PER CURIAM.

21   {1}    WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by the Court upon
 1   Appellant’s appeal of the district court’s April 12, 2022, order denying Appellant’s

 2   second motion to reconsider the amended order granting Appellee’s amended

 3   petition for writ of habeas corpus;

 4   {2}     WHEREAS, this Court’s September 23, 2022, order requesting a response

 5   acknowledged Appellee’s motion for expedited review, and Appellant’s September

 6   28, 2022, response was “not opposed to an expedited review”;

 7   {3}     WHEREAS, the district court filed its original order granting Appellee’s

 8   amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 19, 2021, upon which

 9   Appellant filed a motion to reconsider on March 8, 2021;

10   {4}     WHEREAS, the district court granted Appellant’s motion to reconsider in part

11   and issued an amended order granting Appellee’s amended petition on August 20,

12   2021;

13   {5}     WHEREAS, the district court failed to serve the parties with the amended

14   order entered on August 20, 2021;

15   {6}     WHEREAS, notwithstanding the district court’s failure to serve the parties,

16   both parties acknowledged that Appellee’s counsel became aware of the amended

17   order on September 17, 2021, and that counsel for Appellee provided the order to

18   Appellant’s counsel on that same day;

19   {7}     WHEREAS, Appellant filed its second motion to reconsider on December 14,

                                               2
 1   2021, eighty-eight days after it became aware of the amended order and over one-

 2   hundred days after the district court entered the amended order;

 3   {8}    WHEREAS, this Court agrees with the district court’s ruling that the

 4   applicable timeline is the thirty-day period in which to file an appeal under Rule 5-

 5   802 NMRA, see Rule 5-803(I) NMRA and comm. comment., and that the district

 6   court was not required to consider Appellant’s untimely appeal under Trujillo v.

 7   Serrano, 1994-NMSC-024, ¶ 9, 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369, because the district

 8   court’s failure to serve the parties did not confuse the administration of justice or

 9   perpetrate injustice, see id., and does not excuse Appellant’s extreme untimeliness

10   given Appellant’s awareness on September 17, 2022, that the August 20, 2022, order

11   had been filed;

12   {9}    WHEREAS, the rules of the Court and this Court’s precedent have decided

13   the issues of law presented in this case;

14   {10}   WHEREAS, this Court may exercise discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA

15   to dispose of a case by nonprecedential order rather than by formal opinion;

16   {11}   WHEREAS, this Court having considered the foregoing and being

17   sufficiently advised, Chief Justice C. Shannon Bacon, Justice Michael E. Vigil,

18   Justice David K. Thomson, Justice Julie J. Vargas, and Justice Briana H. Zamora,

19   concurring;

                                                 3
 1   {12}   NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the district court’s dismissal of

 2   this matter is AFFIRMED.

 3   {13}   IT IS SO ORDERED.

 4
 5                                C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

 6
 7                                MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

 8
 9                                DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

10
11                                JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

12
13                                BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice

                                          4