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 the Appellant's appeal against the district court's decision, which denied the Appellant's second motion to reconsider an amended order. This amended order had granted the Appellee's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The sequence of events includes the district court's initial grant of the Appellee's petition, the filing of motions to reconsider by the Appellant, and the issuance of an amended order by the district court, which was not served to the parties. However, both parties became aware of the amended order, leading to the Appellant's untimely second motion to reconsider (paras 1-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, February 19, 2021: Original order granting Appellee’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• District Court, March 8, 2021: Appellant filed a motion to reconsider.
• District Court, August 20, 2021: Granted Appellant’s motion to reconsider in part and issued an amended order.
• District Court, April 12, 2022: Denied Appellant’s second motion to reconsider the amended order.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued for reconsideration of the amended order granting the Appellee's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Filed a second motion to reconsider after becoming aware of the amended order, despite the lapse of the timeline for filing an appeal (paras 1, 3-4, 7).
• Appellee: Opposed the Appellant's motions to reconsider and supported the expedited review of the case, as indicated by the Appellant's lack of opposition to such a review (paras 2, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court was required to consider Appellant’s untimely appeal of the amended order granting Appellee’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
• Whether the district court’s failure to serve the parties with the amended order excuses the Appellant’s extreme untimeliness in filing a second motion to reconsider.

Disposition

• The district court’s dismissal of the matter is affirmed (para 12).

Reasons

• Per C. Shannon Bacon, Chief Justice, Michael E. Vigil, Justice, David K. Thomson, Justice, Julie J. Vargas, Justice, and Briana H. Zamora, Justice, concurring: The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing with its ruling on the untimeliness of the Appellant's appeal. The Court found that the applicable timeline for filing an appeal is thirty days as per Rule 5-802 NMRA, and the district court's failure to serve the parties with the amended order did not confuse the administration of justice or perpetrate injustice. The Court also exercised its discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to dispose of the case by nonprecedential order rather than by formal opinion, based on the rules of the Court and precedent (paras 8-11).