State v. Hinds
35,900
N.M. Ct. App.Apr 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Patrick J. Hinds pleaded no contest in magistrate court to accessory to unauthorized hunting, received a deferred sentence, paid the fine, and successfully completed the deferred sentence. He later sought to withdraw his plea in district court on grounds including an invalid waiver of counsel and lack of informed plea.
- The district court granted Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea on the ground that his waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent; the district court did not take testimonial evidence at the hearing but asked parties for supplemental authority.
- The State appealed, raising issues in its docketing statement that the Court of Appeals found irrelevant, hypothetical, or undeveloped.
- The State moved to amend its docketing statement to add a single issue: whether the district court’s finding that the waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent was supported by the evidence. The State also moved to supplement the record with magistrate-court waiver forms.
- The Court of Appeals denied the motion to amend because the State failed to comply with Rule 12-208(F) and controlling case law: the amendment did not state how the issue was preserved, did not explain what objections (if any) the State made in district court to the procedure or lack of evidentiary hearing, and did not show good cause for amendment.
- The Court also denied the motion to supplement the record, noted the State did not pursue other issues, and affirmed the district court’s order allowing Defendant to withdraw his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Appeals should allow amendment of the State’s docketing statement to challenge district court’s finding that waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent | State: the amended statement properly frames the appellate issue and the district court’s finding lacked evidentiary support | Hinds: (implicit) district court properly found waiver invalid and granted withdrawal; State failed to preserve the issue | Denied. Amendment denied because State failed to comply with Rule 12-208(F) and did not show preservation or good cause | |
| Whether the appellate court should consider a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge when the State did not request an evidentiary hearing in district court | State: challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting district court’s finding | Hinds: district court’s independent determination stands; no error shown | Not considered. State failed to explain preservation or objection to district court’s procedure; issue not properly before appellate court | |
| Whether supplemental record materials (magistrate waiver forms) should be accepted | State: seeks to supplement record to support its proposed issue | Hinds: (implicit) supplementation unnecessary because amendment improper | Denied. No viable issues remain that would make supplementation necessary | |
| Whether previously-raised docketing issues are abandoned | State: originally raised three issues (criticized as vague/irrelevant) | Hinds: no response to proposed disposition | Court: issues deemed abandoned | Affirmed. No other viable issues before court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rael, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (standards for granting motions to amend a docketing statement on summary calendar)
- State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (denying amendment that raises nonviable issues even if jurisdictional/fundamental error alleged)
- State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (discussing rule developments and limits on procedural arguments)
- State v. Sharp, 276 P.3d 969 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (district court must make independent de novo determination on appeal from magistrate court; on-record review improper)
- State v. Gallegos, 142 N.M. 447, 166 P.3d 1101 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (district court may hold evidentiary hearing on plea issues when record lacks relevant considerations)
- State v. Salenas, 112 N.M. 268, 814 P.2d 136 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (issue deemed abandoned when party does not respond to proposed disposition)