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 Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual penetration in the third degree. The appeal centers around the exclusion of any reference to the Victim's bipolar diagnosis during the trial, which the Defendant argued prevented him from presenting his defense effectively.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his due process rights were violated by the court's decision to place his appeal on the summary calendar based on an insufficient docketing statement, without a full transcript or a detailed account of relevant facts (para 2). Contended that the exclusion of references to the Victim's bipolar diagnosis during the trial infringed on his ability to present a defense, specifically regarding the credibility of the Victim's testimony and the context of her staying at his residence (paras 7-10).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Maintained that the information regarding the Victim's childhood bipolar diagnosis was not relevant to the case, arguing that since the Victim had not been taking medication for the condition, had not been re-diagnosed more recently, and did not show symptoms of being bipolar at the time of the incident, the diagnosis was not pertinent to her credibility or the case at hand (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's due process rights were violated by placing his appeal on the summary calendar based on an insufficient docketing statement.
• Whether the district court's exclusion of any reference to the Victim's bipolar diagnosis during the trial constituted an abuse of discretion and infringed on the Defendant's ability to present his defense.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of due process rights violation was denied (para 3).
• The motion to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was denied (para 5).
• The appeal regarding the exclusion of references to the Victim's bipolar diagnosis was affirmed, upholding the district court's decision (para 13).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The court found no violation of the Defendant's due process rights by assigning the case to the summary calendar, determining that there was sufficient information from the docketing statement and the record to evaluate the merits of the case (para 3).
  The court disagreed with the Defendant's argument that the presumption of correctness on the summary calendar constitutes a violation of due process rights, finding no supporting authority for this claim (para 4).
  Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court found the circumstances not analogous to cases where failure to file a timely notice of appeal constituted per se ineffective assistance, and noted the Defendant did not demonstrate how a more detailed docketing statement would have changed the outcome of the proceedings (paras 5-6).
  On the issue of excluding references to the Victim's bipolar diagnosis, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court reasoned that the diagnosis was too remote and speculative to be relevant to the Victim's credibility or the incident in question, especially since the medication Victim was taking at the time of the incident was for a seizure disorder, not bipolar disorder (paras 7-12).