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 case involves an appeal concerning the appointment of a permanent guardian and conservator for the Appellant. The Appellant claims that a notice of appeal was timely filed but was allegedly misplaced by the district court. The appeal centers on whether the notice of appeal was properly and timely filed with the district court clerk, as required by procedural rules.
Procedural History
- District Court, December 18, 2009: The district court issued an order appointing a permanent guardian and conservator for the Appellant.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the notice of appeal was timely filed with the district court on January 14, 2010, but was misplaced by the court. The Appellant cited precedent allowing appellate courts to overlook untimely filings caused by court error.
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed with the district court clerk.
- Whether the appellate court should overlook the untimely filing due to alleged court error.
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed.
Reasons
Per Fry CJ. (Bustamante and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the notice of appeal was not filed with the district court clerk until February 17, 2010, which was beyond the deadline of January 19, 2010. Although the Appellant claimed the notice was timely filed on January 14, 2010, there was no evidence in the record to support this assertion. The Court acknowledged that untimely filings caused by court error could be excused but determined that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient proof of such an error. The Court suggested that the Appellant seek an extension of time from the district court, as the February 17 filing fell within the permissible period for requesting an extension. The Court also declined to consider affidavits submitted on the matter, as it is not a fact-finding body.