State v. Oropeza, 35,663

Defendant Oscar Oropeza appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial after conviction; the district court held it lacked jurisdiction because the motion was untimely under Rule 5-614(C) NMRA.
Sentencing counsel filed the notice of appeal and a docketing statement raising only the denial of the new-trial motion as the appellate issue.
Defendant (through appellate counsel) sought assignment to the general calendar, rejection or amendment of the docketing statement, and contended he was being denied his right to appeal because trial counsel had been removed and sentencing/appellate counsel had not reviewed trial transcripts.
The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed disposition to summarily affirm; Defendant responded and the court considered but denied his motions and arguments.
The appellate court treated claims about incomplete appellate presentation as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel contention and held such claims are generally more appropriately raised in habeas corpus proceedings when the record is incomplete.
The court concluded the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the untimely new-trial motion and affirmed the district court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should reassign the case from summary to general calendar	Summary disposition appropriate; record sufficient	Case needs general calendar because factual gaps exist	Denied — summary calendar appropriate; record sufficed
Whether the docketing statement should be rejected or amended	Docketing statement adequate to present the new-trial issue	Docketing statement incomplete; appellate counsel lacks trial transcript and issues	Denied — sentencing counsel’s filing was sufficient; no good cause to amend
Whether appellate counsel’s claimed unfamiliarity with trial proceedings denies Defendant his right to appeal	State: procedural docket supports appeal on the filed issue	Defendant: effectively denied appellate review due to counsel turnover and lack of transcript review	Denied as raised on direct appeal; treated as ineffective-assistance claim better suited for habeas
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on the untimely motion for a new trial	Timeliness requirement deprives court of jurisdiction	Motion was late but Defendant proceeded pro se at hearing and contends waiver of counsel issues	Held that the motion was untimely and deprived the district court of jurisdiction; denial affirmed

Udall v. Townsend, 126 N.M. 251, 968 P.2d 341 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (summary calendar used when record, docketing statement, and briefs suffice to resolve issues)
State v. Roybal, 132 N.M. 657, 54 P.3d 61 (N.M. 2002) (ineffective-assistance claims first raised on direct appeal are evaluated using record facts; remand for hearing if prima facie shown)
State v. Grogan, 142 N.M. 107, 163 P.3d 494 (N.M. 2007) (habeas proceedings are preferred for ineffective-assistance adjudication when trial record is incomplete)
State v. Rael, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (standards for amending the docketing statement; good-cause requirement)