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 State of New Mexico filed a delinquency petition against Terra S., a minor, on January 5, 2018. Following her first appearance, the district court ordered her detention until future proceedings. The State later filed a notice of intent to invoke an adult sentence against Terra S., which was withdrawn, leading to her conditional release. Terra S. filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing it exceeded the allowable days for prosecuting a juvenile petition. The district court denied this motion (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, March 26, 2018: Denied Terra S.'s motion to dismiss the delinquency petition (para 2).
• District Court of Taos County, March 30, 2018: Granted Terra S.'s motion for interlocutory appeal (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the case exceeded the allowable number of days for the prosecution of a juvenile petition and should be dismissed (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Child-Appellant's motion to dismiss based on the argument that the case exceeded the allowable number of days for prosecuting a juvenile petition (para 2).
• Whether the Child-Appellant's application for interlocutory appeal was timely and thus, whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the district court's decision (paras 4-7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Child-Appellant's interlocutory appeal due to the untimely filing of the application for leave to file an interlocutory appeal (para 11).

Reasons

• VARGAS, Judge, with ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and MEDINA, Judge concurring:
  The Court found that the Child-Appellant's application for interlocutory appeal was filed beyond the fifteen-day deadline required by Section 39-3-4 and Rule 12-203, failing to meet the mandatory precondition for the Court's jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court also noted that it never granted the Child-Appellant's request to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The Child-Appellant's concession of the untimely filing and the argument for considering the merits of the appeal based on principles of criminal law and procedure were rejected. The Court clarified that the untimely filing could not be excused by ineffective assistance of counsel or misunderstanding of deadlines by counsel, as there is no statutory authority or supreme court rule allowing for an extension of time for filing an appeal. The Court suggested that the Child-Appellant could pursue other avenues for appeal, including another request for interlocutory appeal, a direct appeal, or a habeas proceeding raising ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 4-10).