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 charged with CSP and CSC. The State filed an appeal against the dismissal of the complaint by the district court. The appeal process encountered issues related to the State's failure to include the required certification in its notice of appeal, as mandated by NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-3(B)(2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Grant County, October 3, 2011: Dismissal of the complaint against the Defendant.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, September 19, 2012: Dismissal of the State's appeal due to procedural deficiencies.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the district court’s amended order included the requisite certification language and that the technical deficiencies in its notices of appeal should be overlooked in favor of hearing the case on its merits. The State also contended that its second amended notice of appeal should be read in conjunction with the prior notice to fulfill the certification requirement.
• Defendant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's appeal should be dismissed due to the absence of the required certification from the district attorney in its timely notice of appeal, as mandated by NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-3(B)(2).

Disposition

• The appeal filed by the State was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies, specifically the failure to include the required certification in its notice of appeal.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court held that the timeliness and certification requirements under Section 39-3-3(B)(2) are mandatory preconditions to appellate jurisdiction. The State's failure to include the necessary certification language in its notice of an interlocutory appeal from a suppression order, absent exceptional circumstances, was a critical procedural deficiency. The Court found no exceptional circumstances that would justify overlooking this requirement. The Court also rejected the State's argument that an amended notice of appeal could correct the defect or that technical violations should be excused to hear the appeal on its merits, citing the precedent set in State v. Vasquez.