City of Rio Rancho v. Worley
This text of City of Rio Rancho v. Worley (City of Rio Rancho v. Worley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 5 not include the filing date. 6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 CITY OF RIO RANCHO,
8 Plaintiff-Appellee,
9 v. No. 30,365
10 MICHAEL WORLEY,
11 Defendant-Appellant.
12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 13 John F. Davis, District Judge
14 City of Rio Rancho 15 James C. Babin, City Attorney 16 Gina R. Mandredi, Assistant City Attorney 17 Rio Rancho, NM
18 for Appellee
19 Bowles and Crow 20 Monnica Garcia 21 Jason Bowles 22 B.J. Crow 23 Albuquerque, NM
24 for Appellant
25 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 SUTIN, Judge.
2 Defendant appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his appeal from
3 municipal court to district court, arguing that the district court erred by failing to apply
4 the conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel established in State
5 v. Duran, 105 N.M. 231, 731 P.2d 374 (Ct. App. 1986). This Court issued a calendar
6 notice proposing to reverse the district court’s order dismissing Defendant’s appeal.
7 Defendant has filed a memorandum in support of this Court’s proposed disposition,
8 and the City of Rio Rancho has filed a memorandum in opposition. Having
9 considered the arguments of both parties, we reverse.
10 In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that State v. Eger,
11 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 2, 141 N.M. 379, 155 P.3d 784, required the district court to
12 apply a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel to defense counsel’s untimely
13 filing of Defendant’s notice of appeal. We noted that the deadline for filing
14 Defendant’s notice of appeal under Rule 8-703(A) NMRA was August 19, 2009, but
15 that counsel did not file the notice until August 21, 2009. [CN 2] We further noted
16 that in Duran, 105 N.M. at 231-32, 731 P.2d at 374-75, this Court adopted a
17 conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel where a late notice of
18 appeal is filed. [CN 3] Further, we noted that in Eger, 2007-NMCA-039, ¶ 2, this
19 Court extended the conclusive presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel to de
2 1 novo appeals from magistrate court to district court. [Id.] We proposed to conclude
2 that there was no basis for distinguishing the present case from Eger, and we proposed
3 to reverse the district court for its failure to apply the conclusive presumption. [CN
4 3-4]
5 In its memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition, the City urges
6 this Court to disregard Duran and Eger in favor of a technical application of the rules.
7 [MIO 2-3] The City contends that if this Court expects a pro se litigant to know and
8 follow all the rules and procedures of the court, that a litigant with counsel should not
9 be treated differently. [MIO 3] The City’s argument fails to take into account this
10 Court’s reasoning in Duran that “criminal defendants are not to be deprived of an
11 appeal as of right where a procedural defect results from ineffective assistance of
12 counsel.” Duran, 105 N.M. at 232, 731 P.2d at 375 (citing Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S.
13 387 (1985)). We are unpersuaded by the City’s argument and decline to overrule our
14 precedent by ruling as the City requests.
15 For the reasons stated in this opinion and in this Court’s proposed disposition,
16 we reverse the district court’s order dismissing Defendant’s appeal for lack of
17 jurisdiction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with
18 this opinion.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 1 __________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
3 WE CONCUR:
4 _______________________________ 5 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
6 _______________________________ 7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
City of Rio Rancho v. Worley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-rio-rancho-v-worley-nmctapp-2010.