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 Appellant was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol and refused to submit to a breath alcohol test. The arresting officer served the Appellant with a notice of revocation of his driver's license. The notice required a written hearing request within ten days, accompanied by a $25 fee or a sworn statement of indigency. The Appellant mailed a timely hearing request but failed to include the required fee or statement of indigency (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, Luna County: Upheld the Taxation and Revenue Department's denial of a license revocation hearing, finding that the Appellant's failure to include the $25 fee or a statement of indigency rendered the hearing request invalid (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that (1) the failure of the arresting officer to fill in the date on the notice of revocation deprived the Department of jurisdiction; (2) the incomplete notice did not provide proper notice of the time frame to request a hearing; and (3) there was no statutory authority allowing the Department to deny a hearing for failure to include the $25 fee or a statement of indigency (para 5).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department): Asserted that the notice of revocation substantially complied with statutory requirements, the Appellant was not prejudiced by the incomplete notice, and the statutory requirement to include the fee or statement of indigency was mandatory (paras 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Did the failure of the arresting officer to fill in the date on the notice of revocation deprive the Department of jurisdiction?
• Did the incomplete notice fail to provide proper notice of the time frame to request a hearing?
• Does the statute allow the Department to deny a hearing for failure to include the $25 fee or a statement of indigency?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the denial of the Appellant's request for a license revocation hearing (para 13).

Reasons

Per Alarid J. (Wechsler and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

• The Court found that the notice of revocation substantially complied with statutory requirements, and the failure to fill in the date of service did not deprive the Department of jurisdiction. The operative date for calculating the ten-day period was the actual date of service, which was undisputed (paras 8-9).
• The Appellant's timely submission of a hearing request rendered any confusion about the date of service harmless. The Court emphasized that a party must show prejudice to warrant reversal, which the Appellant failed to do (para 10).
• The statutory language of NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-112(B), clearly requires that a hearing request be accompanied by the $25 fee or a sworn statement of indigency. The Court held that these requirements are mandatory and conjunctive, and failure to comply results in forfeiture of the right to a hearing (paras 11-12).
• The Court concluded that the Department's denial of a hearing was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was in accordance with the law (para 6).