Court of Appeals of New Mexico

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, ex rel.
ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE (1) 1996 DODGE P/U SILVER,
VIN: 1B7HF16ZXTJ191924,
NEW MEXICO LICENSE # 294RLJ,
Defendant,
and
DIANNA WALLER,
Claimant-Appellant.

NO. 35,446

COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

July 7, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Alan M. Malott, District Judge

COUNSEL

City of Albuquerque Legal Department, Jessica Hernandez, City Attorney, Kyle Hibner, Assistant City Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

Dianna Wallen, Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellant

JUDGES

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge. WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

AUTHOR: JAMES J. WECHSLER

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WECHSLER, Judge.

{1}       Claimant-Appellant Dianna Waller (Appellant) has sought to appeal from an order granting forfeiture pursuant to the City of Albuquerque’s DWI-related civil forfeiture ordinance. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to dismiss. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.

{2}       As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, ¶ 24, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam). In this case, Appellant filed her notice of appeal nearly a month late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g., Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d 122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late).

{3}       In her memorandum in opposition Appellant offers neither any basis for extending the filing deadline nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 2] Instead, we understand Appellant to invite the Court to consider the “extensive facts” and the merits of the appeal notwithstanding the untimely filing. [MIO 29A] We decline.

{4}       Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we dismiss.

{5}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

WE CONCUR:

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge