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

• Petitioner Reilly Johnson, a prisoner, sought to appeal the New Mexico Adult Parole Board's decision regarding his case. The district court denied his petition for writ of certiorari and dismissed his appeal with prejudice due to timeliness issues, as the petition was filed more than thirty days after the final decision of the Parole Board. Johnson argued that he did not receive the final decision until several days after it was filed, justifying the delay in filing his petition (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Denied Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari and dismissed his appeal with prejudice on timeliness grounds. Also denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the district court erred in denying his petition for writ of certiorari on timeliness grounds, contending that as a prisoner, he did not receive the final decision of the New Mexico Adult Parole Board until April 2, 2018, which justified the delay in filing his petition (para 1).
• Respondent: Filed a notice of intent not to file a memorandum in opposition to the Court of Appeals' notice of proposed disposition, effectively not contesting the Petitioner's arguments (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari on timeliness grounds, considering the circumstances of the Petitioner's receipt of the final decision (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari on untimeliness grounds and dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, with Jacqueline R. Medina and Briana H. Zamora concurring, the Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in denying the petition for writ of certiorari based on timeliness. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Petitioner, suggesting that the district court's decision was incorrect under both Rule 1-005(H) NMRA, which addresses filing and service by an inmate, and existing case law that recognizes unusual circumstances justifying untimely filings. The State's decision not to oppose the proposed disposition further supported the reversal of the district court's decision (paras 1-3).