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 Respondent appealed three orders issued by the district court: an order of protection, a denial of her request to dismiss the order of protection, and a denial of her motion to disqualify the domestic hearing officer and/or district judge. The appeal focused on whether the notice of appeal was filed within the required timeframe.

Procedural History

• District Court, October 10, 2003: Issued an order of protection.
• District Court, November 20, 2008: Denied the Respondent’s request to dismiss the order of protection.
• District Court, February 19, 2009: Denied the Respondent’s motion to disqualify the domestic hearing officer and/or district judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Respondent): Argued that the time for filing the notice of appeal should exclude weekends and legal holidays, based on information allegedly provided by the district court clerk. She also claimed that alleged perjury by the complaining witness constituted unusual circumstances warranting consideration of her untimely appeal.
• Appellee (Petitioner): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Was the Respondent’s notice of appeal filed within the required timeframe under Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA?
• Should the court excuse the untimely filing of the notice of appeal based on alleged misinformation from the district court clerk or unusual circumstances?

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of a timely notice of appeal.

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Fry CJ and Bustamante J. concurring):

• The court determined that the notice of appeal was untimely. Under Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA, the time for filing a notice of appeal is thirty days, and Rule 12-308 NMRA specifies that weekends and legal holidays are only excluded if the last day of the period falls on such a day. The Respondent’s notice of appeal was due on March 23, 2009, but was not filed until April 1, 2009.
• The court rejected the Respondent’s argument that the time for filing should exclude all weekends and legal holidays, as this interpretation was inconsistent with the plain language of Rule 12-308 NMRA.
• The court held that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as represented parties and cannot rely on alleged misinformation from court staff to excuse procedural defects. Additionally, alleged perjury by the complaining witness did not constitute the type of unusual circumstance that would justify overlooking the untimely filing.
• The court also noted that the Respondent failed to provide a basis to establish the finality of the February 19, 2009 order for the purpose of appeal.