State v. Alejandro M., 485 P.3d 787

Child was charged with shooting at/ from a motor vehicle, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and two counts of tampering with evidence; the State filed a notice to seek adult sanctions on March 26, 2020.
A preliminary hearing was set for April 6, 2020 and Child was allowed to appear remotely; technical problems forced Child to appear by phone and the prosecution’s witness could not identify him.
The district court continued the hearing and required an in-person appearance; the State requested a one-week continuance, defense requested two weeks, and the court set the hearing for April 28, 2020 (day 33 after the notice).
Child filed an emergency motion to quash/dismiss for failure to obtain a probable-cause determination within the 30-day limit of Rule 10-213(B)(2); the district court denied the motion, finding COVID-19 to be an "exceptional circumstance" under Rule 10-213(D).
At the April 28 hearing Child was identified, the court found probable cause, certified the interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals considered whether the pandemic justified extending the 30-day deadline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alejandro/Child)	Held
Whether COVID-19 and related precautions qualify as "exceptional circumstances" under Rule 10-213(D) permitting extension beyond 30 days	COVID-19 is an unprecedented public-health emergency that prevented timely proceedings and thus constitutes an exceptional circumstance	The pandemic is not an "exceptional circumstance" that excuses failure to comply with the 30-day probable-cause deadline	Yes. Court held COVID-19 and precautionary measures were exceptional circumstances and affirm the extension
Whether the State had an obligation to reschedule the preliminary hearing within the 30-day period after the April 6 technical problem	The State was not required to reschedule within 30 days because the initial technical failure was not foreseeable and the defense requested the two-week continuance	Child argued the State should have acted to preserve the 30-day deadline and request an earlier hearing	Court rejected Child’s argument: scheduling outside 30 days resulted from defense’s requested continuance and pandemic-related complications beyond parties’ control

State v. Stephen F., 140 N.M. 24, 139 P.3d 184 (addresses de novo review for interpretation of children’s court rules)
State v. Anthony L., 433 P.3d 347 (affirms abuse-of-discretion review for continuances under the Children’s Code)
Duran v. Eichwald, 146 N.M. 341, 210 P.3d 238 (defines "exceptional circumstances" as beyond parties' or court's control)
Trujillo v. Serrano, 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369 (limits overlooking procedural defects to truly unusual circumstances)
State v. Candelaria, 144 N.M. 797, 192 P.3d 792 (defines abuse-of-discretion as clearly untenable or unjustified)
United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63 (characterizes the COVID-19 pandemic as an unprecedented, extraordinary circumstance)