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-Appellant sought relief from the district court's denial of his motion for relief from judicial bias and his motion for the release of 911 tapes, which he argued were evidence of his innocence.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Samuel L. Winder, District Judge, denying Defendant's motion for relief from judicial bias and motion for release of 911 tapes.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the 911 tapes were evidence of his innocence and sought relief from judicial bias.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for relief from judicial bias.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for the release of 911 tapes as evidence of his innocence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motions.

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring): The Court of Appeals found that the Defendant's motion for the release of 911 tapes was untimely, as it was filed more than seven years after the final judgment, exceeding the two-year limit for a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Additionally, the Court determined that the Defendant's motion for relief from judicial bias was improperly directed at the district court's order denying his petition for habeas relief and for an evidentiary hearing, over which the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not contest these findings on the merits. The Court declined the Defendant's request to construe his motions as habeas petitions and transfer the case to the Supreme Court, noting that the motions did not conform to the requirements for habeas petitions under Rule 5-802.