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 Defendant was arrested for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and arraigned. The trial was set and continued twice due to the State not being ready. The Defendant failed to appear at a scheduled trial, leading to a bench warrant. The Defendant appeared the next day, explaining her absence due to a car accident, and the warrant was canceled. The trial was rescheduled past the original six-month deadline. After several continuances, the trial commenced, and the Defendant was found guilty (paras 4-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was found guilty of aggravated DWI, first offense (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her failure to appear should not have reset the six-month period for trial commencement because she provided a justification for her absence, which the court accepted (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the Defendant waived her right to claim a violation of the six-month rule by not filing a motion to dismiss in the metropolitan court and acquiescing in the resetting of the rule (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's failure to appear and subsequent justification for her absence should have reset the six-month period for the commencement of trial under Rule 7-506(B)(5) NMRA (para 1).
• Whether the Defendant waived her right to claim a violation of the six-month rule by not objecting to the resetting of the six-month period in the metropolitan court (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction, holding that the Defendant waived her right to claim a violation of the six-month rule (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jane B. Yohalem, Zachary A. Ives, and Shammara H. Henderson, concluded that the Defendant waived her rights under the six-month rule by failing to file a motion to dismiss for violation of the rule in the metropolitan court and acquiescing in the resetting of the rule. The Court emphasized that the six-month rule aims to ensure prompt trials and dispositions of criminal cases, not to facilitate technical dismissals on appeal. The Court decided not to address the Defendant’s request to apply an exception to the rules of preservation to argue a new construction of Rule 7-506(B)(5) for the first time on appeal, basing its decision on principles of waiver (paras 13-19).