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 Petitioner appealed from the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration regarding an administrative decision. She filed a notice of appeal and a docketing statement but did not file a petition for writ of certiorari within the required timeframe. The Petitioner argued that her pro se status, the unclear appellate procedures, her caregiving responsibilities, and her graduate studies constituted unusual circumstances that should excuse her late filing.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Judge: Denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed on September 21, 2011.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the notice of appeal, request for extension to file a docketing statement, and the docketing statement itself should be construed as a timely filed petition not barred by the doctrine of laches. Claimed that pro se status and personal circumstances justified leniency and excused the late filing. Also argued the merits of her appeal regarding the admission of certain evidence ([MIO 2-14]).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Petitioner's notice of appeal and subsequent filings can be construed as a timely filed petition for writ of certiorari.
• Whether the Petitioner's pro se status and personal circumstances constitute unusual circumstances that excuse the late filing of a petition for writ of certiorari.

Disposition

• The petition for writ of certiorari was denied due to untimely filing and the lack of unusual circumstances to excuse the late filing.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Cynthia A. Fry, Judge concurring), the Court held that the Petitioner's notice of appeal did not satisfy the requirements for a non-conforming document to be accepted as a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court explained that a docketing statement could potentially satisfy the information requirements for a petition for writ of certiorari, but a notice of appeal could not. The Petitioner's filings were untimely and did not meet the time and place requirements of Rule 12-505(C). The Court also found that the Petitioner's pro se status and personal circumstances did not constitute unusual circumstances that would excuse the late filing. The Court emphasized that confusion or uncertainty about the appellate procedure does not justify an untimely filing, referencing the Wakeland decision to support its conclusion.