Griego v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't
35,870
| N.M. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Joshua Griego (Driver) appealed the district court’s decision affirming the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) administrative revocation of his driver’s license.
- Driver filed a notice of appeal and a docketing statement in this Court instead of a petition for writ of certiorari required to review district-court appellate judgments from MVD decisions.
- The docketing statement was filed 60 days after the district court’s order—outside the 30-day Rule 12-505(C) deadline for certiorari petitions.
- The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to dismiss for lack of a timely petition; Driver filed a memorandum in opposition arguing timeliness and other exceptions.
- The Court rejected Driver’s arguments (including treating the earlier notice of appeal as a nonconforming certiorari petition and extending the Duran presumption), and dismissed the appeal for lack of a timely petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction where Driver filed notice of appeal and docketing statement instead of a certiorari petition | Griego: the notice of appeal (filed within 30 days) plus later docketing statement should be treated as a timely nonconforming certiorari petition | MVD: a timely petition for writ of certiorari is required to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction; the filings did not meet Rule 12-505(C) | Court: No jurisdiction—the filings did not constitute a timely petition; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a late-filed docketing statement can be treated as a timely nonconforming petition when filed within 30 days of the notice of appeal | Griego: docketing statement was timely relative to the notice and should suffice | MVD: timeliness is measured from district-court order; late docketing statement fails Rule 12-505(C) | Court: Rejects Griego; timeliness requirement not satisfied; nonconforming documents must be timely filed |
| Whether a notice of appeal can substitute for a certiorari petition | Griego: notice of appeal should be accepted as nonconforming petition | MVD: notice lacks required content; cannot substitute | Court: Notice is insufficient—does not substantially comply with content requirements; cannot substitute |
| Whether the Duran presumption (conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance when appeal not timely filed) applies to excuse lateness in this civil appeal | Griego: asks court to extend Duran to accept late filing | MVD: Duran is limited to criminal appeals; not applicable | Court: Declines to extend Duran to civil MVD appeal; presumption not applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 89 P.3d 680 (explaining certiorari is the proper vehicle to review district-court appellate determinations of MVD revocations)
- Maso v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 85 P.3d 276 (district court is exclusive appellate forum for MVD hearings; limited to appellate scope)
- Glynn v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 252 P.3d 742 (petition for writ of certiorari required to invoke this Court’s review of district-court appellate rulings)
- Wakeland v. N.M. Dep’t of Workforce Solutions, 274 P.3d 766 (nonconforming filings may be treated as certiorari petitions only if timely and substantially compliant)
- State v. Duran, 731 P.2d 374 (conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance for untimely notice of appeal in criminal context; not extended to civil cases)