State v. Martinez
149 N.M. 370
N.M.2011Background
- Martinez was indicted on aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, and two conspiracy counts; district court dismissed all charges April 14, 2008 for Rule 5-604 six-month rule violations.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal; State sought certiorari which this Court granted.
- After the State filed its brief, Savedra withdrew the six-month rule for all cases pending as of May 12, 2010, but left it in limited jurisdiction; Barker factors urged for delay due to constitutional speedy-trial concerns.
- The key issue is whether Martinez’s case remained pending at the time Savedra issued, such that Savedra governs, or whether the six-month rule still controls because the district court had dismissed earlier.
- Various appellate decisions conflicted on whether “pending” means non-final or includes appellate proceedings; the Court clarifies Savedra applies to all pending cases not final as of May 12, 2010.
- The Court reverses the Court of Appeals and remands for reinstatement of charges; Martinez may raise a speedy-trial claim on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Savedra apply to Martinez's case? | State: Savedra controls if case not final by May 12, 2010. | Martinez: six-month rule controls since district court dismissed before May 12, 2010. | Savedra applies; six-month rule withdrawn for all pending cases not final as of May 12, 2010. |
| How is 'pending' defined under Savedra? | State: pending means not final; appellate stages count toward pending status. | Martinez: pending is unsettled by conflicting decisions; may depend on whether appellate process is complete. | Pending means not final; finality defined as judgment of conviction plus exhausted appeals and certiorari elapsed or denied. |
| Should Savedra retroactively apply to cases not final as of May 12, 2010? | State: yes, applies to all pending cases regardless of stage. | Martinez: retroactivity should be narrowly applied. | Savedra controls disposition of this case and all others pending as of May 12, 2010. |
| Does Article IV, Section 34 limit the court-rule change in Savedra? | State: Pieri allowed retroactivity; constitutional constraints may apply. | Martinez: Pieri/policy limit retroactivity. | Article IV, Section 34 does not apply to this court’s rule changes absent affirmative action; Savedra applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Savedra, 2010-NMSC-025 (2010) (withdraws six-month rule for pending cases as of May 12, 2010)
- State v. Nunez, 2000-NMSC-013 (2000) (finality: conviction judgment plus exhausted appeals and certiorari time elapsed)
- State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038 (2009) (origin of six-month rule and Barker factors)
- State v. Pieri, 2009-NMSC-019 (2009) (discussion of retroactivity and rule-change application)
- State v. Duran, 2009-NMSC-030 (2009) (speedy-trial inquiry triggers; limitations of six-month rule)