Court of Appeals of New Mexico

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.  Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41605

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

IVAN GAMBOA-SOTO,

Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY
Conrad F. Perea, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

Charles J. Gutierrez, Supervising Assistant Solicitor General

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HENDERSON, Judge.

{1}       The State appeals the district court’s order dismissing voyeurism charges against Defendant Ivan Gamboa-Soto with prejudice after the court found Defendant incompetent to stand trial, but not dangerous. We conclude that dismissal under NMSA 1978, Section 31-9-1.2(A) (1999, amended 2025)^[1] is only permitted without prejudice. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment dismissing the case without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

{2}       Defendant was charged with seven misdemeanor and three felony counts of voyeurism, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-20 (2007). Subsequently, defense counsel requested a competency evaluation pursuant to Rule 5-602.1 NMRA. In response, the State requested that the district court set a dangerousness hearing and find Defendant “dangerous” pursuant to Section 31-9-1.2 and Rule 5-602.2 NMRA. The district court scheduled a hearing, but rescheduled it after Defendant was hospitalized for medical treatment. Defendant did not attend the rescheduled hearing because he had been taken into federal custody shortly after his release from the hospital. The State did not obtain a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to secure Defendant’s presence, nor did it seek another continuance. The district court issued an order finding Defendant to be incompetent but not dangerous under Rule 5-602.2, and accordingly dismissed the charges against him with prejudice pursuant to Section 31-9-1.2(A). The State requested that the district court amend the dismissal order to be “without prejudice,” instead of “with prejudice,” which the district court denied. The State appeals.

DISCUSSION

{3}       The State raises a single issue on appeal—whether the district court erred in dismissing the charges against Defendant “with prejudice.” Because the issue raises questions of statutory interpretation and the application of procedural rules, our review is de novo. See State v. Duhon, 2005-NMCA-120, ¶ 10, 138 N.M. 466, 122 P.3d 50 (“Statutory interpretation is an issue of law, which we review de novo.”); see also State v. Miller, 2008-NMCA-048, ¶ 11, 143 N.M. 777, 182 P.3d 158 (“We apply the same rules of construction to procedural rules adopted by the Supreme Court as we do to statutes.”).

{4}       Section 31-9-1.2(A) provides that “[w]hen, after hearing, a court determines that a defendant is not competent to proceed in a criminal case and the court does not find that the defendant is dangerous, the court may dismiss the criminal case without prejudice in the interests of justice.” As is relevant to this appeal, the language of Rule 5-602.2(E) is identical—stating that if a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial but not dangerous, “the court may dismiss the case without prejudice in the interests of justice.”

{5}       Defendant contends that because Section 31-9-1.2(A) states that the district court “may” dismiss the matter without prejudice, such dismissal is permissive and “the [L]egislature did not foreclose the possibility of dismissal with prejudice.”^[2] However, as Defendant concedes, this Court recently rejected a similar argument in State v. Holbert, 2024-NMCA-069, ¶¶ 17-21, 556 P.3d 603. In that case, this Court applied canons of statutory construction in determining the Legislature’s intent regarding the same language in the same statute as here. See id. ¶¶ 19-21. This Court concluded “that dismissal under Section 31-9-1.2(A) is permitted only if it is without prejudice.” Id. ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we decline Defendant’s invitation to reinterpret the statute differently than it was interpreted in Holbert. See State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, ¶ 24, 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47 (explaining the importance of precedent and that “[v]ery weighty considerations underlie the principle that courts should not lightly overrule past decisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Defendant’s charges with prejudice, rather than without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

{6}       We remand for entry of a corrected order that dismisses without prejudice.

{7}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

WE CONCUR:

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge