This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
- The Defendant was convicted for having an inoperable vehicle on his property, which violated the Las Cruces Municipal Code (LCMC), Section 18-37. The ordinance prohibits leaving an inoperable vehicle on any private or public property within the city for more than 72 hours.
Procedural History
- Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Darren M. Kugler, District Judge, February 16, 2015: Convicted and partial sentence suspension for having an inoperable vehicle contrary to LCMC, Section 18-37.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the LCMC provisions required that he be given notice to remove the nuisance before a criminal complaint could be filed, contending that the notice for abatement of a public nuisance is mandatory.
- Plaintiff-Appellee (City of Las Cruces): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the sufficiency of the evidence supports the Defendant's conviction for having an inoperable vehicle without being given notice to remove the nuisance before filing a criminal complaint.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence.
Reasons
-
Per Wechsler, J. (Vigil, C.J., and Garcia, J., concurring): The Court found that the Defendant conflated the abatement-of-a-nuisance process with the enforcement of prohibited nuisances. The notice provisions in the LCMC relating to nuisances apply to municipal actions to remove or abate a nuisance, not to a violation of the ordinance prohibiting a nuisance. The Court clarified that Section 18-37, which the Defendant violated, is entitled "Prohibited" and specifically describes the act of leaving an inoperable vehicle on property within the city for longer than 72 hours as a punishable offense under the "General Penalty" provision, Section 1-10. The Court concluded that violation of Section 18-37 did not require the City of Las Cruces to notify the Defendant of the inoperable vehicle nuisance before filing a criminal complaint and indicated that the Defendant was or should have been aware of the nuisance on his property (paras 1-4).
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.