State v. Maestas
Background
- Alan Maestas, an attorney, was held in direct punitive contempt for refusing to proceed to trial as ordered by the court, and was sanctioned with a 10-day suspended jail sentence and a $1,000 fine payable to the New Mexico State Bar Foundation.
- Maestas appealed the order, arguing that a contempt fine must be paid directly to the court and not to a third party.
- The Court of Appeals certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court the issue of whether a court may order a contempt fine to be paid to a third party under state statute and constitution.
- The court considered the distinction between "fees collected" by the judiciary (regulated by Article VI, Section 30 of the NM Constitution) and contempt fines imposed as sanctions.
- The court also examined whether the judiciary’s inherent contempt power extends to imposing fines payable to entities other than the state treasury when not expressly limited by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Maestas's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contempt fine can be ordered payable to a third party | Must go directly to the court under statute and constitution | The judiciary has inherent power, no relevant statutory constraint | Permitted under inherent contempt power and not prohibited |
| Whether a contempt fine constitutes a "fee" subject to Art. VI, Sec. 30 | Contempt fines are "fees" and must be paid into state treasury | Fines are not "fees"; fines to third parties aren't collected by court | Fines ≠ fees; only collected fees are covered |
| Whether prior case law (Dominguez) bars the fine | Dominguez prohibits court-ordered payments to third parties | Dominguez limited to sentencing/statutory context | Dominguez not controlling; inapplicable to contempt power |
| Whether judicial discretion for such fines risks abuse | Risk fines could be misused as compensation | Appellate review available for abuse | Theoretical risk unfounded; subject to review |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bliss v. Greenwood, 63 N.M. 156 (N.M. 1957) (establishes judiciary's inherent contempt power)
- Concha v. Sanchez, 150 N.M. 268 (N.M. 2011) (clarifies broad judicial contempt authority)
- State v. Pothier, 104 N.M. 363 (N.M. 1986) (lists factors for punitive contempt sanctions)
- State v. Dominguez, 115 N.M. 445 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (limits apply to sentencing not contempt sanctions)
- Board of Commissioners v. Greacen, 129 N.M. 177 (N.M. 2000) (interprets "fees" vs. "fines" under state constitution)