State v. Carroll, 2015 NMCA 033

Defendant Thaddeus Carroll was convicted of DWI in metropolitan court, appealed to district court for on-record review, and the district court affirmed. Carroll then appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals; the State moved to dismiss.
The State argued the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction and that there is no statutory or constitutional right to appeal from a district court’s on-record review of a metropolitan court DWI conviction.
The Court of Appeals undertook de novo review of constitutional and statutory provisions governing appellate jurisdiction and the right to appeal from courts of limited jurisdiction.
The Court examined Article VI of the New Mexico Constitution, NMSA 1978, § 34-5-8 (Court of Appeals jurisdiction), and § 39-3-3 (right to appeal criminal proceedings), together with the metropolitan court appeal statute, § 34-8A-6(C).
The Court applied the plain-meaning rule and avoided constructions that would raise constitutional questions about the Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority.
The Court denied the State’s motion to dismiss, concluding the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction and the defendant has a statutory right to appeal to this Court; the appeal will proceed on the merits.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review a district court's on-record review of a metropolitan court DWI judgment	Section 34-5-8 does not explicitly cover on-record appellate decisions from district court reviewing metropolitan court judgments; Court of Appeals' jurisdiction is limited	Section 34-5-8(A)(3) vests Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over criminal appeals broadly, including those originating in courts of limited jurisdiction	Court of Appeals has jurisdiction under § 34-5-8(A)(3) to hear appeals from district court on-record reviews of metropolitan court decisions
Whether a defendant has a right to appeal the district court’s on-record review to the Court of Appeals	§ 39-3-3’s reference to "criminal proceeding" does not include a district court’s appellate on-record review; Supreme Court could not create such a right by rule	§ 39-3-3(A)(1) "criminal proceeding" reasonably includes the district court proceedings; Supreme Court may prescribe appellate procedure once Legislature provided the right	§ 39-3-3(A)(1) provides a right to appeal to the Court of Appeals; Rulemaking by the Supreme Court implementing appeal procedure is permissible where Legislature granted the right

State v. Montoya, 144 N.M. 458, 188 P.3d 1209 (N.M. 2008) (jurisdiction questions reviewed de novo)
State v. Heinsen, 136 N.M. 295, 97 P.3d 627 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (right to appeal and jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
State v. Chacon, 19 N.M. 456, 145 P. 125 (N.M. 1914) (distinguishing court jurisdiction from litigant's right to appeal)
State v. Rudy B., 149 N.M. 22, 243 P.3d 726 (N.M. 2010) (jurisdiction vs. right to appeal are separate concepts)
State v. Smallwood, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 (N.M. 2007) (appellate jurisdiction must be vested by Constitution or Legislature)
City of Las Cruces v. Sanchez, 142 N.M. 243, 164 P.3d 942 (N.M. 2007) (creation of right of appeal is substantive and legislative)
State v. Ball, 104 N.M. 176, 718 P.2d 686 (N.M. 1986) (Legislature may change de novo appeals from inferior courts to appellate review)
Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (N.M. 1976) (appeal is not part of the trial)
Lovelace Med. Ctr. v. Mendez, 111 N.M. 336, 805 P.2d 603 (N.M. 1991) (construe statutes to avoid constitutional questions)