Barraza v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
34,245
| N.M. Ct. App. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Deputy Foster stopped Juan Antonio Ochoa Barraza for a lane violation, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested him for DWI.
- Foster read the implied consent advisory in English despite the driver being a Spanish speaker; a bilingual deputy was present to translate if needed.
- Driver refused the breath test; MVD hearing officer Jane Kircher found Driver understood the advisory in English and sustained a one-year license revocation.
- Driver timely appealed the MVD decision to the district court, arguing due process required the advisory be given in Spanish to ensure understanding.
- The district court sua sponte treated the appeal as an original-jurisdiction petition for writ of mandamus (citing Maso), denied relief, and Driver appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals held the district court erred in converting the appeal to mandamus and remanded for the district court to decide the matter in its appellate capacity, directing that MVD must decide constitutional questions within its statutory review when relevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVD has authority under §66-8-112(E) to decide Driver's due process claim about language of the implied consent advisory | Driver: Due process required the advisory be given in Spanish; MVD lacked jurisdiction to resolve that constitutional challenge | MVD: Hearing officer’s factual finding that Driver understood English was within MVD’s limited review authority | Held: MVD must address the constitutional question when it bears on issues MVD is required to decide (following Schuster); district court must review that decision on appellate record, not via original mandamus jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court properly converted the administrative appeal into an original-jurisdiction mandamus petition | Driver: District court should hear the case as an appeal under §66-8-112(H) | District court: Relied on Maso to treat constitutional claims outside MVD’s statutory scope as original-jurisdiction mandamus matters | Held: Conversion to mandamus was error; appeal reversed and remanded for district court to act in its appellate capacity with MVD addressing the constitutional issue first |
Key Cases Cited
- Maso v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 136 N.M. 161, 96 P.3d 286 (N.M. 2004) (discusses limits of MVD jurisdiction to consider certain due process claims and that district court may consider some constitutional claims in original jurisdiction)
- Schuster v. N.M. Dep’t of Taxation & Revenue, 283 P.3d 288 (N.M. 2012) (holds MVD must resolve constitutionality of arrests under §66-8-112 before revoking license)
- Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque, 91 N.M. 455, 575 P.2d 1340 (N.M. 1977) (district court lacks appellate jurisdiction to decide issues the administrative agency lacked authority to decide)