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

• Jani Davis was terminated from her employment as a Sergeant with the Taos Police Department. The decision to terminate was made by the Town Manager and was upheld by an independent hearing officer. Davis sought to appeal this decision.

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, Jeff McElroy, District Judge: Affirmed the decision of an independent hearing officer, upholding the Town Manager's decision to terminate Davis from her employment.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Davis): Argued that it was unclear whether she was required to file a notice of appeal or a petition for writ of certiorari. Contended that the district court did not dismiss her appeal despite her erroneous filing under Rule 1-074 NMRA instead of a petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 1-075 NMRA. Asserted that the Court has discretion to consider untimely appeals and emphasized a policy to review appeals on their merits. Believed that the district court was exercising its original jurisdiction due to the de novo standard of review applied to the legal issue, leading her to file a notice of appeal instead of a petition for writ of certiorari (paras 3).
• Defendant-Appellee (Town of Taos): Pointed out that Davis should have filed a petition for writ of certiorari under Rule 1-075 instead of a notice of appeal under Rule 1-074. Highlighted that Davis had no excuse for failing to follow the procedures for seeking further review in the Court under Rule 1-075. Argued that the fact that legal issues subject to a de novo review are presented in an administrative appeal does not signify that the district court is exercising its original jurisdiction (paras 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether Davis should have filed a petition for writ of certiorari instead of a notice of appeal.
• Whether Davis's appeal to the Court of Appeals was timely and properly filed.
• Whether the district court was exercising its original jurisdiction, thereby justifying Davis's filing of a notice of appeal instead of a petition for writ of certiorari.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, Linda M. Vanzi, and M. Monica Zamora, concluded that Davis's appeal was governed by Rule 12-505, which requires a petition for writ of certiorari for discretionary review. The Court found that Davis did not demonstrate the existence of "unusual circumstances" that would allow for the excusal of the late filing of a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court emphasized that confusion or uncertainty about the procedure for seeking review does not constitute an unusual circumstance sufficient to excuse the late filing. The Court also noted that counsel should not rely on the court's leniency when filing notices of appeal and that only the most unusual circumstances beyond the control of the parties would warrant overlooking procedural defects (paras 5-7).