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 for aggravated DWI (third offense) and possession of an open container. The case's progression was impacted by the COVID-19 public health emergency, which led to a backlog of cases and scheduling challenges for the court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court improperly applied a 90-day extension to the deadline for setting a jury trial, contending that the extension was based on the unavailability of a timely setting due to the backlog of cases from the COVID-19 public health emergency (paras 3-6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not explicitly detail the Plaintiff-Appellee's submissions, but it can be inferred that the Plaintiff-Appellee argued in favor of the legality and appropriateness of the 90-day extension granted by the metropolitan court (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court's application of a 90-day extension for setting a jury trial, due to the backlog of cases from the COVID-19 public health emergency, was proper.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's convictions for aggravated DWI (third offense) and possession of an open container (para 7).

Reasons

• Per Jacqueline R. Medina, J., concurred by Zachary A. Ives, J., and Shammara H. Henderson, J.: The Court of Appeals found the metropolitan court's application of a 90-day extension to be proper, aligning with the New Mexico Supreme Court’s Order No. 20-8500-42. This order exempts any delay caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency from the calculation of deadlines under Rule 7-506. The metropolitan court made the requisite findings to justify the extension, noting the lack of available jury panels or trial calendar openings due to capacity limitations caused by the public health emergency. The Court of Appeals rejected the Defendant's contention that the metropolitan court needed to identify the next available calendar date or engage in more precise calculations. It also dismissed the suggestion that a 90-day extension is impermissibly lengthy, noting that the Supreme Court’s order did not impose specific time limitations on extensions. The decision to affirm was based on both the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the Court's analysis (paras 3-7).