1 N.M. Ct. App. 300
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wakeland sought unemployment benefits; the Department denied benefits for wilful violation of employment terms.
- Wakeland appealed to the district court and then to this Court via notice of appeal and a docketing statement.
- The district court affirmed; Wakeland filed a January 3, 2011 notice of appeal and January 28, 2011 docketing statement in this Court.
- Court questioned whether Wakeland had an appeal as of right or discretionary review, prompting briefing on procedural viability.
- Court treated the docketing statement as a potential non-conforming petition for writ of certiorari but deemed it untimely.
- Rule 12-505(C) requires a timely petition; the untimely filing was not excused by unusual circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wakeland is entitled to an appeal as of right | Wakeland argues for right to appeal this Court's review. | Wakeland is not entitled to an appeal as of right; discretionary review applies. | Not entitled to an appeal as of right. |
| Whether a non-conforming docketing statement can substitute for a petition for writ of certiorari | Court should accept docketing statement as petition to review merits. | Roberson governs; non-conforming document generally not substitute for petition. | Docketing statement may substitute if timely and substantially compliant; here late, not excused. |
| Whether the late filing of the docketing statement can be excused under unusual circumstances | Uncertainty about procedure constitutes unusual circumstances warranting relief. | Uncertainty about procedure is not unusual circumstance; late filing not excused. | Late filing not excused; no unusual circumstances. |
| What is the proper timeliness standard for non-conforming petitions seeking certiorari review | Timeliness should be lenient under liberal notice-posture for non-conforming filings. | Timeliness mandatory; non-conforming docketing statements must be timely or excused only on unusual grounds. | Timeliness mandatory; untimely filing denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberson v. Board of Educ. of City of Santa Fe, 78 N.M. 297 (1967) (notice of appeal cannot substitute for petition for writ of certiorari)
- Dixon v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dep’t., 135 N.M. 431 (2004) (timely notices may substitute for petitions; unusual circumstances analysis applied)
- Glynn v. State, Taxation and Revenue Dep’t., 149 N.M. 518 (2011) (noted accepting nonconforming document due to uncertainty; timeliness considered)
- Hyden v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep’t., 128 N.M. 423 (2000) (unusual circumstances when law uncertain; extension considerations)
- Schultz ex rel. Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dep’t, 148 N.M. 692 (2010) (unusual circumstances may excuse late filing; policy considerations discussed)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Rota-Cone Field Operating Co., 85 N.M. 636 (1973) (mandatory timeliness precondition to exercise jurisdiction; unusual circumstances required)
- Trujillo v. Serrano, 871 P.2d 369 (1994) (only the most unusual circumstances justify overriding timeliness requirement)
- Paule v. Santa Fe Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 138 N.M. 82 (2005) (review of administrative decisions remains discretionary)