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

• Co-Respondent-Appellant Lauro Borunda (Appellant) attempted to appeal a final judgment from the underlying proceedings but filed the notice of appeal over four months late. The appeal concerns a case involving the State of New Mexico Human Services Department and Josefina Lujan, with Borunda as a co-respondent. The specifics leading to the appeal are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that a notice of appeal filed in connection with a prior appeal should be considered sufficient and contended that his motion to reinstate should be deemed an adequate substitute for a notice of appeal. He also suggested that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal should be seen as a "technical" violation, urging the Court to consider the merits of his case under its inherent authority (paras 3-6).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico, Human Services Department, CSED): The specific arguments made by the appellee are not detailed in the provided text.
• Co-Respondent-Appellee (Josefina Lujan): The specific arguments made by the co-respondent-appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether a notice of appeal filed in connection with a prior appeal should be regarded as sufficient for the current appeal.
• Whether a motion to reinstate can be deemed an adequate substitute for a notice of appeal.
• Whether the appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal should be characterized as a "technical" violation, allowing for the application of Rule 12-312(C) NMRA.
• Whether the Court should consider the merits of the case under its inherent authority despite procedural deficiencies (paras 3-6).

Disposition

• The Court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal and for not meeting the requirements for considering a motion to reinstate as an adequate substitute for a notice of appeal (para 7).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, concurring): The Court found that appeals are not typically entertained when the notice of appeal is filed late, as in the appellant's case. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that a notice of appeal from a prior, dismissed appeal could be considered sufficient for the current matter. It also determined that the appellant's motion to reinstate, filed with the Court rather than the district court and outside the applicable thirty-day period, did not satisfy the requirements for a notice of appeal. The Court further clarified that violations of mandatory preconditions to appellate jurisdiction cannot be deemed "technical violations" eligible for leniency under Rule 12-312(C) NMRA. Lastly, the Court declined to exercise its inherent authority to consider the merits of the case, as the appellant did not demonstrate "the most unusual circumstances beyond the control of the parties" necessary for such consideration (paras 1-7).