The court of appeals shall have no original jurisdiction. It may be authorized by law to review directly decisions of administrative agencies of the state, and it may be authorized by rules of the supreme court to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. In all other cases, it shall exercise appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. (As added September 28, 1965.)

ANNOTATIONS

The 1965 amendment, which was proposed by S.J.R. No. 5, § 4 (Laws 1965) and adopted at a special election held on September 28, 1965, by a vote of 31,582 for and 18,477 against, added this section as new to article VI.

Cross references. — For appellate jurisdiction of court of appeals, see 34-5-8 NMSA 1978.

Issuance of subpoenas duces tecum to a non-party was a collateral order reviewable by writ of error. — Where plaintiff sued defendants for employment discrimination; plaintiff’s spouse, who was not a party to the action, maintained a private law practice; plaintiff alleged that upon filing the complaint, defendants retaliated against plaintiff by asserting irregularities with regard to the gross receipts tax records and returns of the spouse’s private law practice; the district court issued subpoenas duces tecum to the spouse and to defendant taxation and revenue department for the spouse’s gross receipts tax records and returns; the spouse moved to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that the gross receipts tax information was confidential and privileged; the district court denied the motion; the order denying the motion to quash practically disposed of all issues raised by the spouse; the issue of the spouse’s rights and privilege concerning the confidentiality of the gross receipt tax information had nothing to do with the merits of plaintiff’s action; and the district court’s order was not a final order disposing of the merits of the underlying case and was effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment because the spouse was not a party to the action, the district court’s order authorizing the subpoenas was reviewable by writ of error under the collateral order doctrine. Breen v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 2012-NMCA-101, 287 P.3d 379.

Scope of limited jurisdiction. — Jurisdiction of the court of appeals is limited to appeals from final judgments, interlocutory orders which practically dispose of the merits of an action, and final orders after entry of judgment which affect substantial rights. Thornton v. Gamble, 1984-NMCA-093, 101 N.M. 764, 688 P.2d 1268; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1986-NMCA-028, 104 N.M. 205, 719 P.2d 432, cert. denied, 104 N.M. 84, 717 P.2d 60.

Court of appeals did not have original jurisdiction to treat defendant's evidentiary claim, asserted as an original motion for post-conviction relief in the appellate court, or in the alternative as an original petition for the writ of habeas corpus. State v. Gonzales, 1968-NMCA-054, 79 N.M. 414, 444 P.2d 599.

Direct appeal of denial of motion to impose double jeopardy bar to retrial. — Where the trial court denied defendant’s motion to bar a retrial on the grounds that the prosecutor had committed misconduct in defendant’s initial trial, because hearsay statements as represented by the prosecutor to have been made by third parties were falsely stated, misleading and prejudicial to defendant’s rights, which invoked defendants double jeopardy rights, defendant had a right to directly appeal the trial court’s order to the court of appeals. State v. McClaugherty, 2007-NMCA-041, 141 N.M. 468, 157 P.3d 33, aff'd, 2008-NMSC-044, 144 N.M. 483, 188 P.3d 1234.

Agency "decision" includes regulations. — Word "decision" in this section embraced regulations adopted by a joint municipal-county board created in accordance with the provision of the Air Quality Control Act (Chapter 74, Article 2 NMSA 1978), and filed with the supreme court law librarian, and court of appeals could review such regulations under former 12-14-7, 1953 Comp., without violation of this section. Wylie Bros. Contracting Co. v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo Cnty. Air Quality Control Bd., 1969-NMCA-089, 80 N.M. 633, 459 P.2d 159.

Pre-enforcement facial challenge of regulations unauthorized. — The court of appeals was without authority to review the constitutionality of the New Mexico Mining Act (69-36-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.) in an appeal challenging regulations on their face. Old Abe Co. v. New Mexico Mining Comm'n, 1995-NMCA-134, 121 N.M. 83, 908 P.2d 776, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 828, 907 P.2d 1009.

Review of tax decision. — Court of appeals was authorized to review decisions of the commissioner of revenue (now director of the revenue division of the taxation and revenue department) directly. Union Cnty. Feedlot, Inc. v. Vigil, 1968-NMCA-088, 79 N.M. 684, 448 P.2d 485.

Writ of prohibition not in aid of appellate jurisdiction. — Writ of prohibition against district court judge in workmen's compensation case could not be issued by court of appeals, as the writ would not aid that court's appellate jurisdiction. State ex rel. Townsend v. Court of Appeals, 1967-NMSC-128, 78 N.M. 71, 428 P.2d 473.

Appeal of criminal contempt conviction. — Defendant had the right to appeal his conviction for criminal contempt, and court of appeals had jurisdiction over such appeal. State v. Watson, 1971-NMCA-104, 82 N.M. 769, 487 P.2d 197.

Court of appeals has no authority to modify contempt sentence. State v. Sanchez, 1976-NMCA-104, 89 N.M. 673, 556 P.2d 359.

Court of appeals has jurisdiction to entertain a defendant's appeal of probation revocation. State v. Castillo, 1980-NMCA-020, 94 N.M. 352, 610 P.2d 756, cert. quashed, 94 N.M. 675, 615 P.2d 992.

When court has jurisdiction over mandamus proceeding. — Where a mandamus proceeding is consolidated with a district court appeal from a decision of the personnel board, the court of appeals has jurisdiction over the mandamus parties. State ex rel. N.M. State Hwy. Dep't v. Silva, 1982-NMCA-121, 98 N.M. 549, 650 P.2d 833.

Authority to remand for new sentence. — Appellate courts have the authority to remand a case for entry of judgment on the lesser included offense and resentencing rather than retrial when the evidence does not support the offense for which the defendant was convicted but does support a lesser included offense. The rationale for this holding is that there is no need to retry a defendant for a lesser included offense when the elements of a lesser offense necessarily were proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in the course of convicting the defendant of the greater offense. State v. Haynie, 1994-NMSC-001, 116 N.M. 746, 867 P.2d 416.

Court is not bound by trial court interpretations of statutes and rules; rather it reviews them to determine whether they are legally correct. State v. Herrera, 1978-NMCA-048, 92 N.M. 7, 582 P.2d 384, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972.

Court of appeals is to follow precedents of supreme court; it is not free to abolish instructions approved by the supreme court although in appropriate situations it may consider whether the supreme court precedent is applicable. State v. Scott, 1977-NMCA-024, 90 N.M. 256, 561 P.2d 1349, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 637, 567 P.2d 486, overruled by State v. Reynolds, 1982-NMSC-091, 98 N.M. 527, 650 P.2d 811.

Jury instruction. — The court of appeals has no authority to review a claim that UJI Crim. 2.10 (now UJI 14-210 NMRA) is erroneous. State v. King, 1977-NMCA-042, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170, overruled by State v. Reynolds, 1982-NMSC-091, 98 N.M. 527, 650 P.2d 811.

The court of appeals is not precluded from considering error in jury instructions, but is precluded only from overruling those instructions that have been considered by the supreme court in actual cases and controversies that are controlling precedent. State v. Wilson, 1994-NMSC-009, 116 N.M. 793, 867 P.2d 1175.

Effect of grand jury report. — Since no parties are involved, and no facts are found nor issues of law decided, the report of a grand jury is not a judgment. Therefore, that report does not constitute a final, appealable order. McKenzie v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court, 1988-NMCA-085, 107 N.M. 778, 765 P.2d 194, cert. denied, 107 N.M. 785, 765 P.2d 758.

Law reviews. — For article, "Mandamus in New Mexico," see 4 N.M. L. Rev. 155 (1974).

For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to civil procedure, see 13 N.M. L. Rev. 251 (1983).

For article, "History of the New Mexico Court of Appeals" see 22 N.M. L. Rev. 595 (1992).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts § 54 et seq.

New trial, grant of, by appellate court because of inability to perfect record for appeal, 13 A.L.R. 107, 16 A.L.R. 1158, 107 A.L.R. 603.

21 C.J.S. Courts § 9 et seq.; 72 C.J.S. Process §§ 2 to 10.