339 P.3d 614
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was indicted for murder and related offenses; he moved to suppress statements, a gun, and custodial interrogation evidence.
- The district court granted the suppression motion on December 6, 2012.
- The State filed a motion to reconsider the suppression order on January 4, 2013 (approximately 29 days after the suppression order).
- A new judge denied the motion to reconsider on April 9, 2013.
- The State filed a notice of appeal nine business days after that denial (April 22, 2013), but well beyond the ten-day appeal window from the suppression order prescribed by statute and rule.
- The State conceded its motion to reconsider was filed outside the ten-day appeal period and argued the appeal should nonetheless be allowed (either construed as from the suppression order or tolled by the motion to reconsider); Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may file a motion to reconsider a suppression order and preserve its right to appeal | State: Motion to reconsider should be permitted and, if timely, can toll the appeal period; asking for reconsideration promotes judicial economy | Defendant: Motion to reconsider filed after the appeal period cannot preserve or toll appeal timing; appeal is untimely | Court: State may seek reconsideration at any time before final judgment, but to preserve the ten-day appeal right the motion to reconsider must be filed within that ten-day period |
| Whether a motion to reconsider filed outside the ten-day appeal window tolls the appeal period | State: Relies on Roybal — post-judgment motions can suspend finality and toll appeal time | Defendant: Roybal does not help because the motion was not filed within the statutory appeal period | Court: Roybal governs only when the motion is filed within the allowable appeal period; because State’s motion was filed after ten days it did not toll the ten-day appeal period |
| Whether the Court should exercise discretion to hear an untimely appeal | State: No unusual circumstances presented; asks to avoid penalizing reconsideration practice | Defendant: Appeal is time-barred and must be dismissed | Court: The Supreme Court has discretion but will not excuse the untimely appeal absent unusual circumstances; none were shown, so dismissal is required |
| Whether the notice of appeal may be construed as appealing the suppression order despite naming the denial of reconsideration | State: Liberal construction of notices of appeal can treat it as appeal of suppression order | Defendant: Timeliness still controls; notice cannot cure late filing | Court: Liberal construction does not overcome the statutory ten-day limit; late filing is fatal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roybal, 132 P.3d 598 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (post-judgment motions filed within the appeal period suspend finality and toll the time to appeal until disposition)
- State v. Heinsen, 121 P.3d 1040 (N.M. 2005) (suppression-order appeals are statutory in nature)
- Govich v. North American Systems, Inc., 814 P.2d 94 (N.M. 1991) (courts should liberally construe technical defects in notices of appeal)
- Sims v. Sims, 930 P.2d 153 (N.M. 1996) (district courts retain plenary power to revise interlocutory orders prior to final judgment)
Conclusion: The State’s motion to reconsider was filed after the ten-day statutory appeal window and therefore did not toll the appeal period; the State’s notice of appeal was untimely and the Court dismissed the appeal.