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

A criminal defense attorney filed a motion to suppress evidence in a case involving controlled substances. The attorney requested multiple continuances for the hearing, which were granted. On the day of the scheduled hearing, the attorney withdrew the motion, resulting in unnecessary costs for the State, including travel expenses for a witness and interpreter fees (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court: The district court assessed costs of $1,762.12 against the defense attorney for the expenses incurred due to the late withdrawal of the motion to suppress (paras 1, 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defense Attorney): Argued that there was no statutory or procedural authority to assess costs against him personally and that his actions did not constitute contempt of court (paras 6, 8, 13).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the attorney's negligence caused unnecessary costs and that the court's inherent contempt powers justified the assessment of costs (paras 4-5, 8-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court had the authority to assess costs against the defense attorney for the late withdrawal of a motion to suppress.
• Whether the attorney's actions constituted contempt of court.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court's decision to assess costs against the defense attorney (para 21).

Reasons

Per Minzner J. (Franchini C.J., Baca, Serna, and McKinnon JJ. concurring):

• The court held that statutory authority for assessing costs in criminal cases is limited to cases where the defendant is convicted, and this authority does not extend to defense counsel (paras 6-7).
• The attorney's actions, while negligent, did not violate any specific court order or rule, and thus did not constitute contempt of court (paras 12-14).
• The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) guidelines, which were cited by the district court, govern reimbursement procedures but do not authorize shifting costs to individual attorneys (paras 15-19).
• The court suggested that the Rules of Criminal Procedure Committee review the issue of costs negligently incurred in criminal cases to determine if rule changes are warranted (para 20).