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 arrested for aggravated DWI, first offense, and arraigned. The trial was continued twice due to the State's unpreparedness. After the second continuance, the Defendant moved to dismiss the case, which the metropolitan court granted without prejudice. The State re-filed the complaint, setting the trial for the last possible date under Rule 7-506, and mailed the notice six days prior to the trial. The Defendant did not appear at the trial, leading the metropolitan court to issue a bench warrant. The Defendant argued that the six-day notice was insufficient and moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 7-506, which was denied (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court, August 21, 2008: Dismissed the case without prejudice due to the State's unpreparedness.
• Metropolitan Court, October 14, 2008: Issued a bench warrant for the Defendant's failure to appear at the re-filed trial.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Judith K. Nakamura, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court's decision.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the six-day notice by mail of the trial date was insufficient under Rule 7-506, making the bench warrant improper and the case should be dismissed.
• State: Contended that the notice period was irrelevant and that the bench warrant was justified due to the Defendant's failure to appear, allowing the trial period under Rule 7-506 to restart upon the Defendant's surrender.

Legal Issues

• Whether the six-day notice by mail provided to the Defendant for his trial date was sufficient under Rule 7-506.
• Whether the issuance of a bench warrant for the Defendant's failure to appear was within the discretion of the metropolitan court under Rule 7-506.

Disposition

• The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with orders to vacate the conviction of the Defendant and dismiss the case with prejudice pursuant to Rule 7-506(E)(2) (para 14).

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Kennedy, C.J., and Sutin, J., concurring): The court found that the six-day notice by mail was not sufficient under Rule 7-506, as it did not provide adequate time for the Defendant to prepare or appear for the trial. The court disagreed with the State's position that the amount of notice was irrelevant and highlighted that a warrant for failure to appear cannot be based on an order that defies compliance. The court also noted the State's failure to be ready to try the case within the initial 182 days and criticized the strategic re-filing just prior to the expiration of the 182-day period as not in the spirit of Rule 7-506, which aims to guarantee a defendant's right to a speedy trial (paras 9-13).