AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 case involves an appeal by Defendant Simp McCorvey III, who is self-represented, against the district court's order on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. The appeal was proposed to be dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal by the Defendant. The Defendant contended that his notice of appeal was timely and argued that he was not aware of the district court's final order until served with a demand for money by the Plaintiff, claiming the order was now final.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, December 10, 2015: The district court entered its final order, resolving the pending motion to reconsider.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the notice of appeal for the present appeal was timely and argued unusual circumstances existed due to lack of knowledge about the district court's final order until after being served with Plaintiff's demand for money.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's notice of appeal was filed within the allowable time frame.
• Whether unusual circumstances justify the Court's discretion to hear the Defendant's untimely appeal.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal by the Defendant.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Stephen G. French concurring, found that the Defendant's notice of appeal was not filed within the required time frame. The Court explained that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to its jurisdiction and that there were no unusual circumstances justifying the exercise of discretion to hear the Defendant's appeal. Despite the Defendant's claim of not being served with the order and alleging "secret proceedings," the Court found evidence in the record indicating that the district court did serve the Defendant with the final order. The Court also noted that whether the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration that was pending during the prior appeal is irrelevant to the timeliness of the present appeal (paras 1-6).