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 respondent's thirty-day involuntary commitment to the New Mexico Behavioral Health Institute (NMBHI) following a hearing on the State's petition for involuntary commitment. The respondent appealed the district court's commitment order.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Angie K. Schneider, District Judge, dated December 3, 2015.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying the motion to dismiss due to the State's failure to comply with statutory time limits for filing and serving the petition for involuntary commitment.
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the respondent's motion to dismiss for the State’s failure to comply with the statutory time limits under NMSA 1978, Section 43-1-11(A) (2009).
• Whether the district court erred in denying the respondent's motion to dismiss for the State’s failure to demonstrate proper service of the petition within the statutory time limit.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as moot.

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge, concurring, decided to dismiss the appeal as moot. The court noted that the respondent should have been released from NMBHI no later than April 1, 2015, and therefore, no actual relief could be granted from the commitment order on appeal (para 2). The court also considered whether to make an exception to the mootness doctrine but concluded that the issues raised were not of public importance nor likely to evade review, as the question of whether dismissal is the proper remedy for a violation of procedural requirements had been previously addressed in New Mexico Department of Health v. Compton, 2001-NMSC-032 (para 4). The respondent's argument did not convince the court that an exception to the mootness doctrine was warranted (para 4).