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

• Alfonso G. Sanchez, a self-represented litigant, appealed from the district court's Order concerning his Complaint for Interpleader, to Amend, to Appoint Attorney, Surveyor, Appraiser, and for Injunctive Relief, as well as all pleadings related to said Order. The appeal involves issues surrounding guardianship and conservatorship orders previously entered against him (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, January 10, 2014: Issued an Order Resolving Alfonso G. Sanchez's Complaint for Interpleader, to Amend, to Appoint Attorney, Surveyor, Appraiser, and for Injunctive Relief.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the Court should appoint private counsel to represent him and raised issues regarding errors in the underlying guardianship and conservatorship proceeding (para 3).
• Conservator-Appellee and Successor Conservator-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals should appoint private counsel to represent the Petitioner-Appellant in this matter.
• Whether there were errors in the underlying guardianship and conservatorship proceeding that warrant overturning the district court's Order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order entered on January 10, 2014, and dismissed the appeal regarding the guardianship and conservatorship orders entered before January 10, 2014, as untimely (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring): The Court noted that the Petitioner-Appellant was given numerous opportunities to point out errors in fact or law with the proposed disposition but failed to do so. The Court had previously considered and addressed the arguments regarding the appointment of private counsel and the alleged errors in the guardianship and conservatorship proceeding. The Petitioner-Appellant's repetition of earlier arguments did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's Order and dismissed the appeal as untimely based on the reasons stated in their first and second notices of proposed disposition (paras 3-4).