State v. J Pinto

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. NO. 29,281
5 JUNIOR PINTO,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
8 Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge
9 Gary K. King, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender
13 Karl Erich Martell, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellant
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 KENNEDY, Judge.
18 Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the charges against him
19 on the basis that he was not timely arraigned pursuant to Rule 5-604(A) NMRA. In
20 our second notice, we proposed to affirm the denial of Defendant’s motion.
21 Defendant has timely responded. We have considered his arguments and finding them
1 unpersuasive, we affirm.
2 In our notice, we proposed to conclude that the failure to arraign here for an
3 extended period of time was a technical violation of the rule. [SCN 2] As a result,
4 Defendant was required to show that he was prejudiced by the violation. State v.
5 Budau, 86 N.M. 21, 23, 518 P.2d 1225, 1227 (Ct. App. 1973). Defendant
6 acknowledges that he did not establish any particular prejudice, but he continues to
7 assert that the violation of the rule was a violation of due process.
8 As we pointed out in our notice, due process is often satisfied by establishing
9 procedures that are deemed fair and appropriate under the circumstances. Here, the
10 procedures established for arraignment of a criminal defendant are meant to ensure the
11 identity of the defendant, to inform him of the charges against him, and to give him
12 an opportunity to plead to the charges. There is no question that all of that occurred
13 when the charges were pending in magistrate court. Thus, we cannot say that
14 Defendant’s due process rights were violated under the circumstances of this case.
15 For the reasons stated herein and in the second calendar notice, we affirm the
16 denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 ___________________________________
19 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
20 WE CONCUR:
2
1 ___________________________
2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
3 ___________________________
4 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge
3