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

• Petitioners-Appellants, Kim Audette and Sophia Peron, appealed a zoning commission decision that granted Hot Springs Land Development, LLC, a zoning change for 8,200 acres near a municipal airport. The appeal was initially made to the district court, challenging the commissioners' ordinance favoring the development project (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court, May 10, 2010: The court issued a final order affirming the zoning decision and denied Audette's motion for reconsideration. Later, sanctions were sought against Audette for frivolously filing her motion for reconsideration (para 3).
• District Court, December 10, 2010: The court granted the motion for sanctions but postponed the decision on the amount of attorney fees pending further submissions (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that the zoning commission's decision was erroneous and sought appellate review of both the zoning decision and the sanctions order (paras 1, 4).
• Respondents-Appellees: Moved to dismiss the appeal directed at the order affirming the zoning decision, arguing that the appellants were not entitled to an appeal as of right from the zoning decision and should have sought discretionary review by way of a petition for writ of certiorari (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the docketing statement filed by Audette and Peron can be accepted as a non-conforming petition for writ of certiorari (para 5).
• Whether the petition for writ of certiorari was timely filed (para 6).
• Whether the petition presents a question meriting discretionary review pursuant to Rule 12-505(D)(2)(d) (para 13).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico denied the petition for writ of certiorari, concluding that the petition did not present a question meriting discretionary review (para 14).

Reasons

• The Court found that although Audette and Peron failed to file a petition for writ of certiorari as required, their docketing statement substantially complied with the content requirements for such a petition. Since they also requested an extension of time to file their docketing statement within the thirty-day deadline, the Court accepted their non-conforming petition as timely. However, after reviewing the petition and relevant material in the record, the Court determined that the petition did not present a question meriting discretionary review, leading to the denial of the petition (paras 5-14).