State v. Anthony L.

• Decision Date: 26 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. A-1-CA-36241,A-1-CA-36241
• Citation: 433 P.3d 347
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY L., Child-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

433 P.3d 347

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.ANTHONY L., Child-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-36241

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: September 26, 2018

Certiorari Denied, November 7, 2018, No. S-1-SC-37315

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Maha Khoury, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

ZAMORA, Judge

{1} Child appeals the district court’s order granting the State’s motion for extension to commence Child’s adjudication and his commission of the delinquent act of driving without a valid driver’s license. Child contends that: (1) the district court erred by extending the time to commence Child’s adjudication; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that he committed the delinquent act of driving without a valid driver’s license. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} On September 6, 2016, a delinquency petition was filed alleging that on September 3, 2016, Child had committed the delinquent acts of: (1) leaving the scene of an accident (property damage), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-202 (1978) ; (2) driving without a valid driver’s license, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-2 (2013) ; and (3) tampering with evidence (third or fourth degree felony), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-5 (2003). Child was arrested and held in detention until September 7, 2016, when he was conditionally released to New Day Shelter. Child was arrested on October 7, 2016, for violating his conditions of release and held in detention. On October 12, 2016, a notice was issued setting a pretrial conference for October 31, 2016.

{3} On the day of the pretrial conference, the State filed a motion to extend the time limit for the adjudicatory hearing in which it noted that: the matter had been set for an adjudicatory hearing on October 31, 2016; the time limit to commence the adjudicatory hearing was November 7, 2016; and a continuance was necessary in anticipation of a pending community service agency (CSA) assessment and identification of a possible out-of-home placement for Child. At the hearing, Child’s attorney opposed the motion, although the district court had stated at the last hearing it would grant an extension and set the adjudication for December. The State noted that the motion was opposed, but left the certification date for providing opposing counsel with a copy of the motion blank. Also on the same date, the district court’s order of continuance of the pretrial conference was filed and reset for November 21, 2016. Opposition to the motion by Child’s attorney was noted on that order. The district court order granted the State’s motion for extension extending the date to commence the adjudication to December 13, 2016, and a notice of jury trial was issued.

{4} On November 3, 2016, a hearing was held before a special master to address conditions of release and placement options for Child. Child’s counsel informed the special master that Open Skies, a CSA, had assessed Child on October 26, 2016, and Amistad Shelter had informed her the day before that they had an opening. Child’s counsel also suggested that Child did not need to stay in detention waiting for the Open Skies assessment; however, the Child remained in detention.

{5} On November 21, 2016, Child was conditionally released to Amistad Shelter. On November 23, 2016, Child filed an objection to the extension and request for reconsideration, reversal and dismissal. At a hearing on December 12, 2016, the district court stated that the good cause for extending the time line was because of the district court’s busy docket.

{6} After a jury trial, Child was found to have committed the delinquent acts of leaving the scene of an accident and driving without a valid driver’s license. A mistrial was declared on the delinquent act of tampering with evidence. The judgment and disposition, for an extended consent decree, was filed on January 23, 2017. Child was placed on probation, under an extended consent decree, for a period not to exceed one year, or through January 22, 2018.¹

District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Granting an Extension to Commence Child’s Adjudication.

{7} The granting of a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the district court. In re Doe , 1975-NMCA-108, ¶ 8, 88 N.M. 347, 540 P.2d 827. The standard of review for a motion to continue is abuse of discretion. Id . An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is "clearly untenable or not justified by reason." State v. Candelaria , 2008-NMCA-120, ¶ 12, 144 N.M. 797, 192 P.3d 792 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There is no abuse of discretion when there are reasons that both support and detract from a trial court’s decision. State v. Moreland , 2008-NMSC-031, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 192, 185 P.3d 363. Our review looks at the evidence and its inference in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision. Candelaria , 2008-NMCA-120, ¶ 12, 144 N.M. 797, 192 P.3d 792.

{8} Appellate courts review interpretations of our Supreme Court rules de novo, State v. Stephen F. , 2006-NMSC-030, ¶ 7, 140 N.M. 24, 139 P.3d 184, as well as "the district court’s application of the law to the facts of [the] case." State v. Foster , 2003-NMCA-099, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 224, 75 P.3d 824. Appellate courts apply the same rules of construction to procedural rules adopted by our Supreme Court as it does to statutes. Walker v. Walton , 2003-NMSC-014, ¶ 8, 133 N.M. 766, 70 P.3d 756. We therefore "look first to the plain meaning of the rule" and "refrain from further interpretation when the language is clear and unambiguous." State v. Gutierrez , 2006-NMCA-090, ¶ 7, 140 N.M. 157, 140 P.3d 1106 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Neither party argues that Rule 10-243 NMRA is ambiguous in the context of the timeliness of the commencement of Child’s adjudication, we therefore apply its plain meaning.

{9} Child argues there was no good cause to extend the adjudicatory time limits, where the State did not explain why it could not try Child within the requisite thirty days. Rather, the State relied on the Child’s placement in detention as a basis for the extension request by depending on an outstanding CSA assessment in anticipation of identifying an out-of-home placement for Child in order to be conditionally released from detention. The State contends that because Child’s parents did not want him in their home, Child’s placement fell to the district court, therefore there was good cause to extend the time limits in order to determine an appropriate placement for Child, based on the CSA’s assessment and recommendations.

{10} The Children’s Code explicitly mandates that Rule 10-243 governs the time limits for the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing. See NMSA, § 32A-2-15 (1993) ("The adjudicatory hearing in a delinquency proceeding shall be held in accordance with the time limits set forth in the Children’s Court Rules[.]"). Rule 10-243 sets forth the time limits for the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing for both children in detention and those children not in detention.

Rule 10-243(A) states, in pertinent part:

A. If the child is in detention, the adjudicatory hearing shall be commenced within thirty (30) days from whichever of the following events occurs latest:

(1) the date the petition is served on the child;

(2) the date the child is placed in detention[.]

....

B. If the child is not in detention, or has been released from detention prior to the expiration of the time limits set forth in this rule for a child in detention, the adjudicatory hearing shall be commenced within one-hundred twenty (120) days from ...:

(1) the date the petition is served on the child[.]

For purposes of calculating the time limits for a child in detention, Child and the State are both relying on the date Child was placed in detention, the second time, October 7, 2016. Thus, the time limit for the commencement of the adjudicatory hearing was November 7, 2016.

{11} Rule 10-243(D) states: "For good cause shown , the time for commencement of an adjudicatory hearing may be extended by the [district] court, provided that the aggregate of all extensions granted by the [district] court shall not exceed ninety ... days[.]" (Emphasis added.) The procedure for extensions of time is set out in Rule 10-243(E) :

The party seeking an extension of time shall file ... a motion for extension concisely stating the facts that support an extension of time to commence the adjudicatory hearing. The motion shall be filed within the applicable time limit prescribed by this rule[.] A party seeking an extension of time shall forthwith serve a copy thereof on opposing counsel. Within five ... days after service of the motion, opposing counsel may file an objection to the extension setting forth the reasons for such objection.... If the [district] court grants an extension beyond the applicable time limit, it shall set the date upon which the adjudicatory hearing must commence.

{12} Two purposes of the Children’s Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-1-1 to -25-5 (1993, as amended through 2018), are pertinent to this case: (1) "to provide for the care, protection and wholesome mental and physical development of children ... [and a] child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern[ ]"; and, (2) "to provide judicial and other procedures through which the provisions of the Children’s Code are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced[.]" Section 32A-1-3(A), (B). One of the purposes of the Delinquency Act, Sections 32A-2-1 to -33, contained within the Children’s Code, is to "encourage efficient processing of cases[.]" § 32A-2-2(G).

{13} This Court has also recognized a constitutional policy reason for the shorter time limits where a child is in detention—the shorter time limit...