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 Petitioner was convicted in metropolitan court for driving while intoxicated. He appealed to the district court, but the case faced multiple delays due to various reasons, including the failure of his court-appointed counsel to subpoena a witness and the absence of a defense witness. The six-month time limit for resolving the appeal expired, and the district court dismissed the case. The Petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request an extension within the six-month period (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court, August 1, 1990: Convicted of driving while intoxicated (para 1).
- District Court, February 7, 1991: Dismissed the appeal due to the expiration of the six-month time limit (para 4).
- Court of Appeals: Affirmed the district court's dismissal and declined to consider the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, believing it had already been decided by the Supreme Court (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued that the six-month time limit should not bar his appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel, as his court-appointed attorney failed to request an extension within the required timeframe. He also contended that his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated (paras 2, 9-10).
- Respondent (State): Asserted that the six-month time limit was a mandatory precondition for the district court's jurisdiction and that the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner was a state habeas corpus action (paras 5, 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the six-month time limit for resolving de novo appeals in district court is a jurisdictional bar.
- Whether the Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel could overcome the mandatory precondition of the six-month time limit.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the district court.
- The case was remanded to the district court for a hearing on the Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim (paras 1, 13-14).
Reasons
Per Ransom CJ (Franchini and Frost JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the six-month time limit for de novo appeals under Rule 7-703 is not a jurisdictional bar but a "mandatory precondition" to the exercise of jurisdiction. Exceptions to this rule may be made when enforcement would be unjust or unfair, particularly when a defendant’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is at stake (paras 6-7, 12).
The Court emphasized that the denial of the Petitioner’s request for an extension by the Supreme Court was based solely on its untimeliness and did not address the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The district court retained jurisdiction to hear the ineffective assistance claim and erred in dismissing the appeal without considering it (paras 8-10, 12).
The Court concluded that the Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be heard on its merits. If the claim is found to be valid, the district court must proceed with the appeal on the driving while intoxicated charge (para 13).