AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

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-Appellant, Paul Keith Reyes, was convicted of a traffic offense in metropolitan court and subsequently appealed an order dismissing his de novo trial in the district court. Reyes elected to proceed pro se throughout the proceedings, did not appear at trial, and filed his notice of appeal pro se.

Procedural History

  • District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge: Convicted Reyes of a traffic offense and dismissed his de novo trial after he was convicted in metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

  • Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that Reyes's notice of appeal was not timely filed, thus failing to properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction.
  • Defendant-Appellant (Paul Keith Reyes): Acknowledged proceeding pro se due to alleged bias of the Public Defender’s office and argued the merits of his appeal, claiming district court bias and a history of harassment by the State.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Defendant-Appellant's notice of appeal was timely filed to invoke the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction.
  • Whether the Defendant-Appellant's pro se status affects the applicability of the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals dismissed Reyes's appeal due to the untimely filing of his notice of appeal.

Reasons

  • Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (James J. Wechsler, Judge, and Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, concurring): The Court found that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to its jurisdiction. Given Reyes's decision to proceed pro se, the Court could not extend the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel that might otherwise excuse a late filing. The Court was not persuaded by Reyes's arguments in his memorandum in opposition, which did not provide new facts, authority, or analysis sufficient to reconsider the proposed dismissal based on the untimely notice of appeal.
 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.