State v. Lucero, 34,713

Background

Defendant Michael Lucero was indicted (Feb 2014) on charges of first- and second-degree sexual offenses against a child; arraigned Feb 28, 2014, on a $100,000 cash-only bond.
Case assigned to the Second Judicial District special calendar; a scheduling order (after reassignment Feb 2, 2015) set a December 19, 2015 deadline for completion of witness interviews and trial windows in April 2016.
Defendant filed motions to review conditions of release; hearings occurred March 31, 2015 (for the conditions motion) and April 3, 2015 (status). Defense counsel told the court the defense was ready for trial; substitute counsel who attended March 31st said he was unsure the State was ready.
On April 3, 2015, the court—anticipating trial to begin April 6, 2015 (a year earlier than the scheduling order’s trial window)—found the State not ready because it still needed to interview a therapist and dismissed the case without prejudice under LR2-400.1.
The State appealed the dismissal; the Court of Appeals found the State had appellate jurisdiction to appeal and held the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State may appeal a district court dismissal without prejudice	State: Section 39-3-3(B)(1) permits the State to appeal dismissals of complaints/ informations even if without prejudice	Lucero: argued the dismissal was not a final, appealable order	Held: The State has a right to appeal dismissal without prejudice under Section 39-3-3(B)(1) (Armijo controls)
Whether dismissal under LR2-400.1 was an appropriate sanction for the State’s lack of readiness	State: Dismissal was improper because the court’s rescheduling (to April 2015) contradicted the scheduling order and the State had not violated the scheduling deadlines	State contends substitute counsel did not represent readiness on behalf of the State	Lucero: implied dismissal appropriate because State told court it was not ready and substitute counsel previously appeared to indicate readiness	Held: Dismissal was an abuse of discretion—court erroneously treated a motion hearing as a docket call, relied on a mischaracterization of substitute counsel’s remarks, and shortened the schedule contrary to the existing deadlines
Whether LR2-400.1 required some sanction where a party misses a scheduling deadline	State: LR2-400.1 allows sanctions but dismissal must be reasonable given facts; here no deadline had been violated (interview deadline was Dec 2015)	Lucero: court had discretion to impose sanctions for not being ready at the rescheduled trial date	Held: Although LR2-400.1 authorizes sanctions, dismissal was not justified where the court had advanced trial dates contrary to the scheduling order and there was no compliance failure under the order
Whether the district court abused discretion in factual findings supporting dismissal	State: factual findings (that substitute counsel said State was ready; that parties had been represented as ready) were incorrect or unsupported	Lucero: contends court acted within discretion based on representations and need to move cases	Held: Court’s factual findings were erroneous and its decision was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts,” constituting an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Heinsen, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040 (N.M. 2005) (discusses the State’s right to appeal adverse rulings in criminal proceedings)
State v. Armijo, 118 N.M. 802, 887 P.2d 1269 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (Legislature intended State may appeal dismissals of counts even if dismissal is without prejudice)
State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard and that a ruling against logic/evidence constitutes abuse of discretion)