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 case involves the Plaintiff, Villa Alegre Apartments, seeking possession of certain rental property and damages from the Defendant, Lonnica Montoya, and all other occupants. The District Court of Santa Fe County entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, with damages to be determined.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Judgment granting possession of rental property to Plaintiff and awarding damages in an amount to be determined.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant: Sought to appeal the District Court's decision, filed a response to the Court of Appeals' notice of proposed summary disposition, suggesting a stay of the appeal pending a separate investigation, and alluded to a request for a new trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appeal is properly before the Court of Appeals.
• Whether a stay should be issued pending the resolution of a separate investigation.
• Whether a request for a new trial can be considered by the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to jurisdictional concerns and the inappropriateness of the requests made by the Defendant.

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, J., with J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, and Briana H. Zamora, Judge, concurring:
  The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition due to jurisdictional concerns and remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's response that the appeal was properly before them, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (paras 1-2).
  The Defendant's suggestion for a stay pending a separate investigation was rejected because it implied the appeal was properly before the Court, which it was not. Additionally, the distinctness and uncertainty of the separate investigation provided no basis for a stay (para 3).
  The Defendant's allusion to a request for a new trial was found to be unsupported by the record, as no motion for a new trial was found. The Court of Appeals does not entertain motions for new trial in the first instance on appeal (para 4).