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 was arrested on September 12, 2004, and charged with aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI), second offense. The Defendant's trial was delayed multiple times due to the absence of key witnesses and procedural issues, including a morning absence by the Defendant on February 15, 2005, which he attributed to car trouble. The trial ultimately did not commence within the 182-day period required by Rule 7-506 NMRA (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court, February 15, 2005: The Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges for exceeding the 182-day trial commencement period under Rule 7-506 was denied. The court ruled that the issuance of a bench warrant for the Defendant's failure to appear restarted the 182-day period (paras 6-7).
• District Court, (N/A): The District Court affirmed the Metropolitan Court's decision, holding that the Defendant's argument regarding the non-issuance of a bench warrant was not preserved for appeal (para 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial did not commence within the 182-day period required by Rule 7-506, as no bench warrant was actually issued for his failure to appear. He contended that his absence on February 15, 2005, was excused and did not trigger a new 182-day period (paras 9, 15, 19).
• State-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant's failure to appear on February 15, 2005, restarted the 182-day period under Rule 7-506(B)(5), regardless of whether a bench warrant was issued. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue of the non-issuance of a bench warrant for appeal (paras 9, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's trial commenced within the 182-day period required by Rule 7-506 NMRA.
• Whether the Defendant's failure to appear on February 15, 2005, triggered a new 182-day period under Rule 7-506(B)(5).
• Whether the Defendant preserved the issue of the non-issuance of a bench warrant for appellate review.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice (para 28).

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Robinson and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the Defendant's trial did not commence within the 182-day period required by Rule 7-506 NMRA, as no bench warrant was actually issued for the Defendant's failure to appear on February 15, 2005 (paras 25-27).
• The Court found that the Defendant's absence on February 15, 2005, was excused due to car trouble, and his subsequent voluntary appearance did not constitute an "arrest" or "surrender" under Rule 7-506(B)(5) (paras 25-26).
• The Court rejected the State's argument that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue of the non-issuance of a bench warrant, noting that the Defendant had no reason to question the Metropolitan Court's repeated assertions that a bench warrant had been issued (paras 15-18).
• The Court emphasized that the State bears the burden of ensuring compliance with the 182-day rule and that the complaint must be dismissed with prejudice if the trial does not commence within the prescribed period (paras 14, 27).