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

• In December 2014, the appellant was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DWI) at an elementary school in Clovis, New Mexico. Following this, the appellant's driver's license was revoked under the Implied Consent Act. An administrative hearing officer upheld this revocation. The appellant then appealed this decision to the Ninth Judicial District Court, which was presided over by District Judge David Reeb. Subsequently, the appellant filed a motion to excuse Judge Reeb from the case, citing potential bias due to Judge Reeb's wife being the district attorney for the Ninth Judicial District. This motion was filed after the district court had affirmed the license revocation (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant-Petitioner: Argued that Judge Reeb's impartiality could be reasonably questioned due to his marital relationship with the district attorney, suggesting a potential conflict of interest that could affect the fairness of the proceedings (para 4).
• Appellee-Respondent: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the appellee-respondent regarding the motion to excuse Judge Reeb.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's appeal from the district court's order denying the motion to excuse should have been brought by way of a direct appeal under Rule 12-201 NMRA or by a petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 12-505 NMRA (para 1).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to it being a non-conforming and untimely petition for writ of certiorari (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi authoring the memorandum opinion, and Judges Michael E. Vigil and Stephen G. French concurring, held that the appellant's appeal on the motion to excuse should have been brought pursuant to Rule 12-505 NMRA. The court reasoned that the district court's jurisdiction arose from a single proceeding, the MVD appeal from the administrative hearing, and did not convert into an original jurisdiction case, including with regard to the motion for disqualification. The court further noted that the appellant provided no legal authority to support the proposition that a denial of a motion to excuse properly invokes the district court’s original jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellant's failure to file a proper petition for writ of certiorari was fatal to the court's jurisdiction to review any aspect of the case, including the motion to recuse (paras 7-12).