City of Albuquerque ex rel. Albuquerque Police Dep't v. Waller ( 2016 )

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
Appeals and does not include the filing date.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, ex rel.
3 ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
4 Plaintiff-Appellee,
5 v. NO. 35,446
6 ONE (1) 1996 DODGE P/U SILVER,
7 VIN: 1B7HF16ZXTJ191924,
8 NEW MEXICO LICENSE # 294RLJ,
9 Defendant,
10 and
11 DIANNA WALLER,
12 Claimant-Appellant.
13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
14 Alan M. Malott, District Judge
15 City of Albuquerque Legal Department
16 Jessica Hernandez, City Attorney
17 Kyle Hibner, Assistant City Attorney
18 Albuquerque, NM
19 for Appellee
20 Dianna Wallen
1 Albuquerque, NM
2 Pro Se Appellant
3 MEMORANDUM OPINION
4 WECHSLER, Judge.
5 {1} Claimant-Appellant Dianna Waller (Appellant) has sought to appeal from an
6 order granting forfeiture pursuant to the City of Albuquerque’s DWI-related civil
7 forfeiture ordinance. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition
8 in which we proposed to dismiss. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition.
9 After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded.
10 {2} As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a
11 mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009,
12 ¶ 24, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam). In this case, Appellant filed her
13 notice of appeal nearly a month late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g.,
14 Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d
15 122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late).
16 {3} In her memorandum in opposition Appellant offers neither any basis for
17 extending the filing deadline nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 2] Instead, we
18 understand Appellant to invite the Court to consider the “extensive facts” and the
19 merits of the appeal notwithstanding the untimely filing. [MIO 29A] We decline.
2
1 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed
2 summary disposition, we dismiss.
3 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 ________________________________
5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
6 WE CONCUR:
7 ________________________________
8 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
9 ________________________________
10 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
3