Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Constitution of New Mexico - cited by 6,028 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,423 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. GUNDERSON
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PATRICIA GUNDERSEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
NO. 32,458
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
April 18, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY, Charles
Cruse Currier, District Judge
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Patricia Gundersen, Roswell, NM, Pro Se Appellant
JUDGES
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge. WE CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals pro se from the district court’s ruling finding her guilty of expired registration and failure to have operating tail lamps. [RP 2] Our notice proposed to dismiss for lack of a final order, but provided that if Defendant secured a final order from the district court within the time for filing a memorandum in opposition, and provided this Court with a copy thereof, we would proceed to calendar this case on the merits. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, wherein she stated that she was unable to secure a final order from the district court. We accordingly dismiss her appeal for lack of a final order.
{2} For the same reasons provided in our initial notice, we dismiss for lack of a final order. In doing so, we acknowledge Defendant’s reference to another appeal she filed in this Court, which Defendant asserts contained a similar finality problem, yet was calendared on the merits. [MIO 2-6] We decline to revisit the other appeal, as that is not the case presently before this Court. Nor do we have authority to exercise supervisory or superintending control over the district court. See N.M. Const. Art. VI, § 3 (Supreme court; original jurisdiction; supervisory control; extraordinary writs).
{3} For the reasons set forth herein and in our notice, we dismiss for lack of a final order.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge