State v. Mackay ( 2017 )

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Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum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 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-35949
5 GREGORY MACKAY,
6 Defendant-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Jacqueline Flores, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General
12 Albuquerque, NM
13 for Appellant
14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
15 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
16 Santa Fe, NM
17 for Appellee
18 MEMORANDUM OPINION
19 GARCIA, Judge.
1 {1} The State appeals an order of dismissal entered by the district court pursuant to
2 the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), which requires that a defendant “be
3 brought to trial within one hundred eighty days after . . . his request for a final
4 disposition[.]” NMSA 1978, § 31-5-12 Art. 3(A) (1971). On appeal, the State
5 contends that Defendant did not trigger that statutory deadline. [DS 5-6; MIO 14] This
6 Court issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm on three independent bases, and the
7 State has filed a memorandum in opposition to that proposed summary disposition.
8 Having duly considered that memorandum, we are unpersuaded and now affirm.
9 {2} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we quoted the district court’s
10 findings that Defendant “believed and was told by officials in Idaho that he requested
11 final disposition of this cause on September 5, 2014.” [CN 4 quoting RP 141] That
12 finding appears to have been based upon the sole piece of evidence described in the
13 State’s docketing statement, which was Defendant’s testimony that he discussed such
14 a request with prison officials in Idaho. [CN 4; DS 4] We then acknowledged the
15 ambiguity of the material available in the record proper dealing with communications
16 between Idaho and New Mexico before pointing out that:
17 A review of both the record proper and the docketing statement filed by
18 the State does not resolve the question of whether anything else was
19 communicated to prosecutorial authorities in New Mexico regarding
20 Defendant’s request for disposition in the fall of 2014. . . . To the extent
21 that the State contends that it was not informed of Defendant’s intention
22 to request a final disposition in 2014, any memorandum in opposition
2
1 that the State chooses to file should include a summary of any evidence
2 relevant to that question.
3 [CN 5-6 (emphasis added)]
4 {3} Rather than summarize any of the evidence received by the district court,
5 however, the memorandum filed by the State merely provides a description of
6 documents appearing in the record proper before turning to a discussion of the IAD’s
7 requirements and an argument that Defendant did not establish that he had triggered
8 that statute. [MIO 2-13, 15-20, 20-25] In fact, the memorandum’s only
9 acknowledgment that any evidence was received below is contained in a footnote
10 reciting that Defendant was the sole witness at the hearing on his motion, and
11 asserting the State’s assessment that none of the evidence offered provides “any
12 additional information that would materially alter the analysis in this appeal.” [MIO
13 12 n.4]
14 {4} The State’s failure to describe any of the evidence received by the district court
15 deprives this Court of any opportunity to review the sufficiency of that evidence to
16 support that court’s findings and, ultimately, any opportunity to review the order on
17 appeal. Our rules require that an appellant provide this Court with a “statement of the
18 case summarizing all facts material to a consideration of the issues presented[.]” Rule
19 12-208(D)(3) NMRA. Where, as here, the issues presented include a claim that a party
20 has failed to carry his burden of proof, the “facts material” to our consideration will
3
1 include, at a minimum, a summary of the evidence relied upon by the court below.
2 Thornton v. Gamble, 1984-NMCA-093, ¶ 18, 101 N.M. 764, 688 P.2d 1268. Failure
3 to do so will generally result in a denial of relief in this Court. State v. Chamberlain,
4 1989-NMCA-082, ¶ 11,109 N.M. 173, 783 P.2d 483.
5 {5} In cataloging the contents of the record proper in this case, the State’s
6 memorandum confirms this Court’s prior conclusion that the record does not contain
7 sufficient information to resolve the issues raised by the State. [CN 5] From the
8 State’s view, this means that “[t]he record lacks substantial evidence of proper notice
9 . . . prior to . . . May 27, 2016.” [MIO 23] That record does disclose, however, that the
10 district court conducted a hearing to address Defendant’s motion on August 30, 2016.
11 [RP 138] And, although the State concedes that testimony, and perhaps other
12 evidence, was received at that hearing [see MIO 12 n.4], the record contains no tape
13 log of any testimony nor even an exhibit receipt that might disclose what type of
14 evidence was before the district court when it granted Defendant’s motion. The record
15 does, however, include the district court’s order dismissing this case three days after
16 that hearing. [RP 141]
17 {6} As a result, it appears the district court dismissed this case on the basis of
18 whatever evidence was received at a single hearing, conducted on August 30, 2016.
19 That evidence included Defendant’s testimony about a conversation he had with Idaho
4
1 prison officials. [DS 4] In this appeal, we do not know whether Defendant’s testimony
2 covered any other topic, but we do know that no other witnesses testified. [MIO 12
3 n.4] We also cannot say for sure what other documents may have been received in
4 evidence, although it does appear that a collection of certified mail receipts were
5 before the court in some form, as the State has now asked us to judicially notice a fact
6 regarding an address appearing on one of those receipts. [MIO 7 n.2]
7 {7} In any event, read collectively, the record proper, the State’s docketing
8 statement, and the State’s memorandum in opposition to summary affirmance do not
9 provide this Court with sufficient information to review the central question raised by
10 the State’s appeal: whether Defendant triggered the IAD’s one-hundred-eighty-day
11 deadline. As a result, the State has not carried its burden on appeal, “to clearly point
12 out errors in fact or law” contained in our original notice of proposed summary
13 disposition. Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d
14 683. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order of dismissal.
15 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 ________________________________
17 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
18 WE CONCUR:
19 _______________________________
20 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
5
1 _______________________________
2 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
6