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 case involves George Myles (Myles), who was adjudicated the parent of two children, Marquisha and Ryan, and ordered to pay child support in 1994. Years later, Myles contested his paternity of Ryan and his child support obligations, leading to multiple court proceedings. He also sought to have his driver's license reinstated, which had been revoked due to non-payment of child support. Myles filed a Rule 1-060 NMRA motion to set aside the original child support order and subsequent orders based on that order.

Procedural History

• District Court, December 2, 1994: Myles was adjudicated the parent of Marquisha and Ryan and ordered to pay child support.
• District Court, March 12, 2004: A hearing officer recommended finding Myles in contempt for failing to comply with the 1994 child support order.
• District Court, June 25, 2004: The hearing officer affirmed the March 12, 2004 order after Myles withdrew his objections.
• District Court, March 30, 2005: The court addressed the contempt and driver's license issues, ordering the Department to initiate restoration of Myles' driving privileges if he made a lump sum payment.
• District Court, April 25, 2005: The court granted Myles' request for paternity testing for Ryan.
• District Court, March 6, 2006: The court found Myles in willful contempt and ordered incarceration, with an opportunity to purge the contempt order by paying $2,500 in child support.
• District Court, February 23, 2010: Myles' Rule 1-060 motion was heard, and the court later denied the motion because it was not filed within one year of the court's order.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Myles): Argued that the district court erred in denying his Rule 1-060 motion and in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to decide whether his driver's license should be reinstated. He also contested his paternity of Ryan and his child support obligations.
• Appellees (State of New Mexico, ex rel. Human Services Department, and Rebecca M. Galaz): Argued that Myles' appeal was deficient in several respects and that he was not entitled to relief under Rule 1-060 NMRA.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Myles' Rule 1-060 NMRA motion.
• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to decide on the reinstatement of Myles' driver's license.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment denying Myles' Rule 1-060 NMRA motion and its conclusion regarding the lack of jurisdiction to decide on the reinstatement of Myles' driver's license were affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, held that Myles failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances required for relief under Rule 1-060 NMRA. The court also noted Myles' misrepresentations and the deficiencies in his legal representation. Regarding the driver's license issue, the court found that Myles did not appeal the relevant order and thus declined to address it. The court criticized Myles' counsel for the deficiencies in the brief and for suggesting that the representation's quality was due to its pro bono nature, emphasizing the legal profession's responsibility to provide competent legal services regardless of payment.