State v. Gonzales, 35,918

The State appealed a district court order denying the State’s motion to declare Fabian Elias Gonzales a fugitive and thus not entitled to probation credit.
The district court found the State had not issued a bench warrant or made efforts to locate the defendant and applied New Mexico precedent to conclude the defendant was not a fugitive.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed dismissal and the State filed a memorandum in opposition arguing a constitutional right to one appeal under N.M. Const. art. VI, § 2.
The State asserted two grounds: (1) the district court’s ruling misapplied NMSA 1978, § 31-21-15(C) (a legal error), and (2) the appeal implicates the State’s important interest in enforcing sentencing and probation laws.
The Court of Appeals analyzed whether the matter was reviewable under the State’s narrow constitutional right to appeal and whether the district court’s ruling was a legal error or a discretionary factual determination.
The Court concluded the district court resolved contested factual issues about fugitive status (substantial-evidence standard) and exercised discretion; therefore the State lacked a constitutional right to appeal and the appeal was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State has a constitutional right to appeal the denial of its motion to declare defendant a fugitive	State: Article VI, § 2 guarantees one appeal; this case affects important state interests (probation enforcement) so constitutional appeal jurisdiction exists	Defendant: No statutory appeal; district court made factual discretionary findings about fugitive status, so no constitutional appeal right	Court: Dismissed—no constitutional right to appeal because decision was factual/discretionary and not a legal error impacting an especially important state interest
Whether the district court erred in applying § 31-21-15(C) (i.e., ruling was contrary to law)	State: District court misinterpreted or misapplied § 31-21-15(C), so its ruling was contrary to law and reviewable	Defendant: District court applied precedent and weighed factual evidence about attempts to serve warrant; determination was factual, not legal	Court: The merits turn on sufficiency of evidence (whether the State attempted service or service would be futile). This is a factual inquiry under substantial-evidence review, so no interlocutory constitutional appeal for the State

State v. Armijo, 118 N.M. 802 (recognizing State’s constitutional right to one appeal in some circumstances)
State v. Heinsen, 138 N.M. 441 (limiting State’s constitutional appeal right to matters affecting particularly important state interests)
State v. Montoya, 149 N.M. 242 (appealability depends on merits where district court acted as matter of law vs. exercised discretion)
State v. Grossetete, 144 N.M. 346 (district court’s discretionary factual rulings are not contrary to law and not immediately appealable by the State)
State v. Jimenez, 135 N.M. 442 (appellate review of fugitive-status rulings is for substantial evidence)
State v. Neal, 142 N.M. 487 (test for fugitive status: State must show attempts to serve warrant or futility of attempts)