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 Defendant sought dismissal of his criminal case, arguing that the amended version of Rule 5-604 NMRA, which governs time limits for commencing trials, should not apply to his case as it was pending before the amendment took effect. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice, and the Defendant appealed, challenging the constitutionality of applying the amended rule retroactively.

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The district court dismissed the case against the Defendant without prejudice following his motion to dismiss under Rule 5-604 NMRA.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the amended version of Rule 5-604 NMRA should not apply retroactively to his pending case, citing Marquez v. Wylie, 78 N.M. 544, 434 P.2d 69 (1967). He also contended that the district court erred in dismissing the case without prejudice after the Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for an extension of time.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Supreme Court’s order amending Rule 5-604 explicitly stated that the amended rule applies to all pending cases, including the Defendant’s.

Legal Issues

• Whether the amended version of Rule 5-604 NMRA could constitutionally be applied to the Defendant’s pending case.
• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the case without prejudice after the Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for an extension of time.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case without prejudice.
• The Defendant’s motion to amend his docketing statement was denied.

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Castillo JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the Supreme Court’s order amending Rule 5-604 explicitly stated that the amended rule applies to all pending cases, including the Defendant’s, “notwithstanding” Marquez v. Wylie. The Court was bound by the Supreme Court’s directive and found no merit in the Defendant’s argument.
• Regarding the Defendant’s motion to amend his docketing statement, the Court noted that while the new issue raised was potentially viable, the Defendant failed to demonstrate how it was preserved in the lower court or why it could be raised for the first time on appeal. Consequently, the motion to amend was denied.