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 City of Albuquerque initiated a civil forfeiture proceeding under its DWI-related civil forfeiture ordinance against a 1996 Dodge Pickup Truck owned by Dianna Waller, following an incident that presumably involved DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) regulations. Waller, as the claimant-appellant, sought to appeal the district court's order granting the forfeiture of her vehicle to the city.

Procedural History

  • District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Judge: Ordered the forfeiture of Waller's vehicle pursuant to the City of Albuquerque’s DWI-related civil forfeiture ordinance.

Parties' Submissions

  • City of Albuquerque: Argued for the forfeiture of the vehicle under the city's DWI-related civil forfeiture ordinance.
  • Dianna Waller: Opposed the forfeiture and sought to appeal the district court's decision, arguing the merits of her case and the "extensive facts" involved.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed nearly a month late.
  • Whether there is any basis for extending the filing deadline or any justification for the delay in filing the notice of appeal.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to the late filing of the notice of appeal by Dianna Waller.

Reasons

  • Per WECHSLER, J. (VANZI, J., and HANISEE, J., concurring):
    The Court observed that filing a timely notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to its jurisdiction (para 2). Waller's notice of appeal was filed nearly a month late, and she provided neither a basis for extending the filing deadline nor any justification for the delay (para 3). Despite Waller's invitation to consider the "extensive facts" and the merits of her appeal, the Court declined to do so due to the untimeliness of the filing (para 3). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition (para 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.