274 P.3d 122
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bransford-Wakefield challenged a district court order on appeal from an MVD license revocation under the Implied Consent Act; petition for writ of certiorari was due 30 days after the district court order but filed 3 days late.
- District court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision denying license revocation suppression issues; held it could not take judicial notice or supplement the record.
- Bransford-Wakefield argued the police failed to disclose a video, allegedly prejudicing due process, and contested the stop’s basis for reasonable suspicion.
- Bransford-Wakefield moved to supplement the appellate record and sought to rely on findings in a criminal case that could undermine the hearing officer’s credibility determinations.
- The issue presented to the Court of Appeals was whether to excuse the late filing of the writ of certiorari based on alleged unusual circumstances.
- The Court held the attorney’s illness was not an unusual circumstance warranting relief and denied the petition as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney illness excuses untimely certiorari filing | Bransford-Wakefield | MVD | Denied; illness not unusual |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Rota-Cone Field Operating Co., 85 N.M. 636, 515 P.2d 640 (1973) (mandatory precondition to appeal; timeliness not excused absent unusual circumstances)
- Trujillo v. Serrano, 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369 (1994) (unusual circumstances beyond party control may excuse late filing when truly unusual (court error))
- Chavez v. U-Haul Co., 1997-NMSC-051, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d 122 (1997) (late filing excused where related unusual circumstances and policy favoring one appeal apply)
- Schultz ex rel. Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dept., 2010-NMSC-034, 148 N.M. 692, 242 P.3d 259 (2010) (unusual circumstances may excuse late filing when not caused by court system; strong policy considerations)
- Glynn v. State Taxation and Revenue Department, 2011-NMCA-031, 149 N.M. 518, 252 P.3d 742 (2011) (reaffirms discretionary review in certiorari and timeliness considerations)
- Maso v. State Taxation and Revenue Department, 2004-NMCA-025, 135 N.M. 152, 85 P.3d 276 (2004) (discretionary review interplay with appeals as of right in administrative context)