Preview:

COLLADO V. N.M. MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, 2005-NMCA-056, 137 N.M. 442, 112
P.3d 303

KATHLEEN ANN COLLADO,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
NEW MEXICO MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellant.

Docket No. 23,938
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
2005-NMCA-056, 137 N.M. 442, 112 P.3d 303
March 30, 2005, Filed

consolidated with
ANN MARIE ZAMBRANO,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
NEW MEXICO MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellant.

Docket No. 23,939 APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Wendy E. York, District Judge
Released for Publication May 24, 2005.
COUNSEL
Kathleen Ann Collado, Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellee in No. 23,938 Ann Marie Zambrano, Albuquerque, NM, Pro Se Appellee in No. 23,939 Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Albert Roland Fugere, Special Assistant Attorney General,
Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant Brian A. Pori, Inocente, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association

JUDGES
LYNN PICKARD, Judge. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Chief Judge, A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge AUTHOR: LYNN PICKARD

OPINION
PICKARD, Judge.
{1} Respondent (sometimes called Motor Vehicle Division or MVD) appeals from the district
court's granting of Petitioners' petitions for writs of mandamus, ordering that their pleas of guilty to traffic offenses, made pursuant to signing uniform traffic citations, be withdrawn and that the metropolitan court proceed to trial on the matters.  We first resolve jurisdictional questions concerning the finality of the orders from which the appeals are taken and the proper method of appellate review. We then summarily address the two issues raised in these cases, which are whether the facts that the petitions were not verified, that proper service was not made on MVD, and that service was not made on the Attorney General were fatal to the district court's exercise of jurisdiction. We hold that they are not and, because MVD did not raise any other issues relating to the merits of these cases until its reply brief, we affirm.  We consolidate these cases for decision.


FACTS
{2} Petitioner Zambrano's unverified petition alleged that she was accused of driving ten miles over the speed limit and that the officer gave her the choice of  either "sign[ing] the citation [and] acknowledging guilt . . . or . . . appear[ing] in court at a later date to contest guilt." The petition further alleged that Zambrano did not know of the other legally valid options that the officer did not mention and as a result "inadvertently waived her right to a day in court . . . [and] to seek a deferred sentence."  There was no certificate of service in the record, but a notice of hearing was mailed to MVD, following which there was a hearing.  No transcript of that hearing was designated, and no transcript of that hearing was filed.  Counsel for MVD appeared at that hearing and objected to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, but, apart from MVD's acknowledgment in its written response that "the Court attempted to cure the fatal jurisdictional flaw [of nonverification] by having the petitioner orally swear in open court to the contents of the petition," we do not know what else happened at that hearing.  Without further hearing, but following MVD's filing of its written response, the district court entered a final order, withdrawing Zambrano's guilty plea and ordering MVD to return a copy of the uniform citation to metropolitan court for trial on the merits.  MVD appeals. Our notice assigning the case to the general calendar ordered the parties to brief the issues of the finality of the order and the proper procedures for appealing orders from district court mandamus proceedings that require lower court trials.
{3} Petitioner Collado's unverified but acknowledged petition alleged that she was accused of driving eleven miles over the speed limit.  Collado's petition further alleged that she "pleaded Not Guilty" and "forthrightly signed the citation with the guilty box checked without the full understanding that the direction of travel did not pass by the [roads identified on the citation,]" and "she was wrongfully identified as the supposed speeding vehicle." She further alleged that she "misunderstood the implications of signing the citation with the guilty box checked."  She later amended her petition to contain allegations similar to Zambrano's, but the petition was still not verified, and the record proper contains no certificate of service for it or the writ based thereon. MVD filed a response, containing a limited entry of appearance and contesting both subject matter and personal jurisdiction because the petition was not verified or properly served.
{4} On the date of the hearing, Collado did not appear, and the proceedings were dismissed without prejudice. Collado moved to reinstate, and MVD filed a response to that motion, stating that its appearance was still limited, but asking the court for sanctions in the event of reinstatement.  Collado replied that she did not receive a confirmed date of the original hearing. At the hearing on the motion to reinstate, MVD began by opposing the motion to reinstate on the merits, indicating that the writ itself, which was served on MVD by  Collado by mail, contained the hearing date. MVD then said, "we need to clear the jurisdictional defects before we proceed." The court entered a final order, withdrawing Collado's guilty plea and ordering MVD to return a copy of the uniform citation to metropolitan court for trial on the merits.
{5} After MVD filed its brief in these cases, Petitioners did not respond, and the cases were submitted in accordance with Rule 12-312(B) NMRA.  However, because these cases are two of several raising similar issues, we perceived the matter to be of  public importance, and we invited the participation of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae. We are grateful for its participation, which has provided Petitioners with advocacy. When we refer in this opinion to Petitioners' contentions, we are referring to arguments made on their behalf by amicus.
DISCUSSION

Finality of Order
{6} The issue of finality arises because the district court's orders did not end the cases, but instead remanded them to metropolitan court for trial on the merits.  Ordinarily, an order remanding a case is not a final order, sufficient to allow this Court to exercise jurisdiction.  High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 119 N.M. 29, 33-34, 888 P.2d 475, 479-80 (Ct. App. 1994). However, there are exceptions to the general rule, and one such exception applies the doctrine of practical finality to hold that a remand order is sufficiently final for appeal if the party opposing remand would be unable to have the propriety of the remand heard at a later date. Id. at 34-36, 888 P.2d at 480-82. It is apparent that if Petitioners have their way in metropolitan court, they could well be acquitted or could well be allowed deferred adjudications of guilt or deferred sentences, from which MVD would have no ability to appeal.  See State v. Ahasteen, 1998-NMCA-158,

Download 2005-NMCA-056.pdf

New Mexico Law