AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant, a member of the New Mexico Army National Guard, was convicted in a special court-martial for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The Defendant challenged the impartiality and qualifications of the military judge presiding over the case, arguing that the judge was improperly qualified under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and that his impartiality could reasonably be questioned due to alleged command influence and other factors (paras 1-2, 7).

Procedural History

• Special Court-Martial: The Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the military judge should have recused himself due to improper qualifications under the UCMJ, potential bias arising from his role as a member of the convening authority's staff, and alleged unlawful command influence. The Defendant also contended that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned and that the appointment of the judge violated due process (paras 2-3, 5-11).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the military judge was properly qualified under the New Mexico Code of Military Justice, which adopts the UCMJ with modifications. The Plaintiff argued that there was no evidence of bias, partiality, or unlawful command influence, and that the Defendant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish these claims (paras 4, 7-11).

Legal Issues

• Was the military judge properly qualified under the New Mexico Code of Military Justice and the UCMJ?
• Should the military judge have recused himself due to alleged bias, partiality, or unlawful command influence?
• Did the appointment of the military judge violate the Defendant's right to due process?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction, holding that the military judge was properly qualified, impartial, and not subject to disqualification or recusal (para 12).

Reasons

Per Flores J. (Bivins and Alarid JJ. concurring):

• The Court found that the New Mexico Code of Military Justice adopts the UCMJ with modifications, and the qualifications for military judges in the New Mexico National Guard differ from those under the UCMJ. The New Mexico statute does not require special certification for military judges beyond being a judge advocate and a member of the New Mexico bar (paras 3-4).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the military judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It held that the Defendant failed to demonstrate any specific basis for bias or unlawful command influence. The record showed that the military judge had no prior involvement in the case and that his performance as a judge was not subject to evaluation by the convening authority (paras 7-8).
• The Court emphasized that the burden of proof for disqualifying a judge lies with the moving party. The Defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the judge was unfair or partial. The Court also noted that the Defendant failed to preserve certain arguments for review by not raising them at the appropriate time (paras 9-11).
• The Court concluded that the Defendant was not denied due process and that the military judge's appointment and conduct were consistent with the requirements of the New Mexico Code of Military Justice (paras 11-12).