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 in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court for violating the City of Albuquerque’s animal ordinance. She appealed this conviction to the district court, seeking a de novo trial. However, the Defendant failed to appear at the scheduled time for this trial, leading to the State's motion to dismiss the case, which the district court granted after a show cause hearing determined the Defendant failed to show good cause for her absence (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant for violating the City of Albuquerque’s animal ordinance.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge, March 23, 2016: Granted the Defendant a trial de novo, which she failed to appear for, leading to the dismissal of her appeal after a show cause hearing (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her failure to appear was due to a mistake about the trial time and that she arrived only minutes after the case was dismissed. She contended that this constituted good cause to vacate the dismissal under Rule 5-828(B) and suggested that her failure to appear was not willful but merely negligent (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Moved to dismiss the case after the Defendant failed to appear for the scheduled trial. The State stipulated to the Defendant’s motion for a show cause hearing (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the Defendant’s appeal for failing to show good cause for her absence at the scheduled trial de novo (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Defendant's appeal, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion given the complete absence of evidence to the contrary (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant provided no transcript for review and failed to cite anything in the record to support her factual assertions, which is a requirement under Rule 12-213(A)(3) NMRA. The Defendant's failure to comply with this rule and her inability to demonstrate the validity of her contentions led to the conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing her appeal. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not preserve her argument regarding the standard of "extreme willfulness" for dismissal and, therefore, reviewed for fundamental error but found none. The decision was based on the limited record available, which did not contain facts contrary to the district court's conclusion (paras 3-9).