AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

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, an inmate at the Lea County Correctional Facility, was found guilty of a drug offense by the Warden and placed in administrative segregation. The Defendant sought to challenge this decision.

Procedural History

  • Warden’s Decision: The Warden found the Defendant guilty of a drug offense and imposed administrative segregation.

Parties' Submissions

  • Appellant (Defendant): Attempted to appeal the Warden’s decision directly to the Court of Appeals, challenging the finding of guilt and the administrative segregation.
  • Appellee (Lea County Correctional Facility): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

  • Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the Warden’s decision?

Disposition

  • The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Bustamante and Sutin JJ. concurring): The Court of Appeals determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the proper avenue for challenging the Warden’s decision was through an appeal or habeas petition to the district court. The Defendant failed to respond to the Court’s notice proposing dismissal, and the time for doing so had expired. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.