State v. Mackay, A-1-CA-35949

Defendant (Gregory Mackay) moved to dismiss under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), claiming he requested final disposition in Idaho on September 5, 2014, which would trigger the IAD’s 180-day trial deadline.
The district court held a hearing on August 30, 2016, received testimony (Defendant was the sole witness) and some documents, and granted dismissal three days later.
The State appealed, arguing Defendant did not trigger the IAD deadline because proper notice was not given to New Mexico prosecutors.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm and asked the State to summarize evidence received by the district court regarding communications between Idaho and New Mexico.
The State’s memorandum in opposition cataloged record documents but failed to summarize the evidence presented at the district-court hearing or explain how that evidence undermined the dismissal.
The Court of Appeals concluded the State did not carry its burden on appeal to show error or to provide the factual summary required for review and therefore affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendant triggered the IAD 180-day deadline by requesting final disposition in Idaho in Sept. 2014	State: No sufficient proof that New Mexico prosecutorial authorities received notice before May 27, 2016	Mackay: Testified he requested final disposition from Idaho officials on Sept. 5, 2014; district court credited evidence at hearing	Court: Affirmed dismissal because State failed to summarize or present the evidence necessary to challenge the district court’s factual findings on appeal
Whether the Court of Appeals may review dismissal when appellant fails to summarize lower-court evidence	State: Argued record lacks substantial evidence and raised legal arguments on IAD application	Mackay: Relied on district-court finding based on hearing evidence	Court: Held appellant must provide a statement of material facts and summary of evidence; failure to do so precludes relief and supports affirmance

Thornton v. Gamble, 688 P.2d 1268 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984) (appellant must summarize evidence relied on by the court below when contesting sufficiency)
State v. Chamberlain, 783 P.2d 483 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (failure to provide required factual statement generally results in denial of relief)
Hennessy v. Duryea, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (appellant’s burden to clearly point out errors of fact or law on appeal)