State v. Valerio
1 N.M. Ct. App. 309
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was charged in magistrate court with two misdemeanor counts of criminal sexual contact; the initial complaint lacked a sworn statement and bore only the prosecutor's signature.
- An amended complaint filed May 20, 2009 reduced the time period and was signed by Officer Matthew Martinez and the prosecutor.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on June 24 and July 6, 2009 for defective initial complaint and lack of bill of particulars; magistrate court denied the motions.
- Defendant argued the statute of limitations barred the case; magistrate court denied dismissal again after hearings.
- Defendant filed an emergency writ of prohibition in district court; the district court granted the writ, concluded the first complaint was invalid and the amended complaint was filed after the limitations period, and remanded for dismissal.
- On appeal, the State contends writ of prohibition was improper because the magistrate court had jurisdiction and an adequate remedy at law exists; the court agrees the writ was improper and remands to reinstate charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was a writ of prohibition proper here? | State argues magistrate court had jurisdiction; writ was improper substitute for appeal. | Defendant argues magistrate court lacked jurisdiction due to statute of limitations defects. | Writ not proper; magistrate court had jurisdiction. |
| Did Defendant have an adequate remedy at law? | State says de novo appeal after final magistrate judgment is adequate. | Defendant asserts writ was necessary to prevent premature dismissal. | Defendant had an adequate remedy at law; writ was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kerby, 141 N.M. 413 (2007-NMSC-014) (statute-of-limitations issues not controlling jurisdiction; writs are extraordinary)
- In re Extradition of Martinez, 130 N.M. 144 (2001-NMSC-009) (definition of jurisdiction for writs of prohibition)
- Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corp. v. Larrazolo, 375 P.2d 118 (1962) (jurisdiction requires subject matter and parties; writs generally improper when jurisdiction exists)
- State v. Begay, 241 P.3d 1125 (2010-NMCA-089) (finality and appealability in criminal cases; remand contexts)
- Chappell v. Cosgrove, 121 N.M. 636 (1996-NMSC-020) (writs sparingly used; not substitute for direct or interlocutory appeal)
- State ex rel. Harvey v. Medler, 142 P. Supp. 376 (1914) (writs not available to correct mere irregularities; not a substitute for appeal)