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 filed a motion to amend his docketing statement to include additional facts discovered after reviewing the transcript. The case was assigned to the general calendar, and the motion was filed alongside the Defendant's brief-in-chief. The motion was based on procedural changes to appellate rules effective July 1, 1990, which altered the requirements for docketing statements in appeals. (paras 1-2)
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant's case was heard, and a decision was rendered.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the motion to amend the docketing statement was necessary to include additional facts discovered after the case was assigned to the general calendar. (para 1)
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether a motion to amend the docketing statement is necessary in cases assigned to the general calendar after the July 1, 1990, amendment to appellate rules.
Disposition
- The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied as unnecessary. (para 6)
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Donnelly and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
The Court reasoned that the July 1, 1990, amendment to SCRA 1986, 12-213(A)(3), eliminated the need for motions to amend docketing statements in cases assigned to the general calendar. The amended rule allows briefs to address issues not included in the docketing statement, overruling prior case law that restricted arguments to those in the docketing statement. The Court emphasized that the record on appeal supersedes the docketing statement for presenting facts once a case is on the general calendar. Additionally, the Court noted that issues not raised in the trial court remain subject to preservation requirements, and prejudice to the appellee may limit review of new issues raised in the brief-in-chief. (paras 2-5)