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 Respondent-Appellant was found to have violated the terms of an order of protection issued against him. As a result, the district court sentenced him to ninety days in jail. The Appellant later argued that the appeal was moot because he had already served the sentence.

Procedural History

• District Court, Taos County, presided by Judge Sam B. Sanchez: Found the Respondent-Appellant in violation of an order of protection and sentenced him to ninety days in jail.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Respondent in the original case): Argued that the appeal should be dismissed as moot because he had already served the ninety-day sentence.
• Appellee (Petitioner in the original case): Supported the Court of Appeals' proposed disposition to affirm the district court's order.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the Appellant had already served the sentence.
• Whether the district court's finding that the Appellant violated the order of protection should be affirmed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order finding the Appellant in violation of the order of protection and sentencing him to ninety days in jail.
• The Court declined to dismiss the appeal as moot.

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Fry C.J. and Sutin J. concurring):

The Court noted that the Appellant failed to file a memorandum in response to the summary calendar notice, which constitutes acceptance of the proposed disposition under established precedent. The Appellant's amended docketing statement was not considered because it did not address the proposals in the calendar notice and was not accompanied by a motion to amend, as required by procedural rules.

Regarding the motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 12-401(B) NMRA and declined to dismiss. The Court reasoned that serving the sentence does not render the appeal moot, citing precedent that allows for the consideration of issues even after a sentence has been served. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's order for the reasons stated in the calendar notice.