Barraza v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
2017 NMCA 43
N.M. Ct. App.2017Background
- Deputy Foster stopped Juan Ochoa Barraza for a lane violation, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested him for DWI; a Spanish‑speaking deputy was present as a translator.
- Foster read the Implied Consent advisory in English; Driver twice refused a breath test and was issued a one‑year revocation and notice of right to an MVD administrative hearing.
- At the MVD hearing, the officer found Driver understood the English advisory and sustained the revocation for refusal to submit to testing.
- Driver appealed the MVD decision to the district court, arguing due process required the advisory be given in Spanish so he could understand and validly refuse.
- The district court, sua sponte, concluded it lacked appellate jurisdiction (citing Maso), converted the appeal into an original‑jurisdiction petition for a writ of mandamus, and denied relief.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court erred in converting the appeal and remanded for the district court to decide the case in its appellate capacity under Schuster.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MVD has authority under §66‑8‑112 to decide a due process claim (language of advisory) in an administrative hearing | Driver: Due process required advisory in Spanish; MVD lacks jurisdiction to decide that constitutional issue so district court must hear it in original jurisdiction | MVD: Hearing officer’s findings show Driver understood English; MVD can and should decide whether Driver understood advisory for purposes of refusal | Held: Following Schuster, MVD must decide constitutional questions that bear on statutory issues (here, whether Driver understood advisory) before revoking a license; district court should review on appeal. |
| Whether the district court properly converted the administrative appeal into a petition for writ of mandamus | Driver: Appeal should proceed under §66‑8‑112(H) appellate review of MVD record | MVD: (Implicit) District court should review MVD’s decision on the administrative record, not treat it as mandamus | Held: District court erred in converting the appeal to mandamus; case remanded for appellate review. |
| Proper standard/jurisdiction for district court review of MVD revocations involving constitutional claims | Driver: Original jurisdiction may be appropriate for constitutional claims beyond MVD scope (relies on Maso) | MVD: Per Schuster, MVD must decide constitutional issues within statutory scope; district court reviews as an appeal under §66‑8‑112(H) and Rule 1‑074(R) | Held: If constitutional issue falls within questions MVD must decide to revoke (e.g., whether person refused after being advised), MVD must decide it first; district court reviews on the administrative record (appellate capacity). |
| Consequences of mischaracterizing appeal as mandamus (procedural consequences) | Driver: Conversion disrupts appellate rights and standards of review | MVD: (Implicit) Procedural posture controls available remedies and appellate route | Held: Conversion has significant consequences (different standards, appeal routes); district court’s conversion was erroneous and prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schuster v. N.M. Dep’t of Taxation & Revenue, 283 P.3d 288 (N.M. 2012) (MVD must rule on constitutionality of an arrest or related constitutional issues when those issues are necessary to decide statutorily enumerated questions in §66‑8‑112)
- Maso v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 96 P.3d 286 (N.M. 2004) (discussed whether MVD had jurisdiction to decide certain due process claims and noted district court’s original‑jurisdiction role when MVD lacks statutory authority)
- Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque, 575 P.2d 1340 (N.M. 1977) (a district court lacks appellate jurisdiction to consider an issue when the administrative agency decided that issue without jurisdiction)