State v. Gurule

• Docket Number: A-1-CA-41313
• Decision Date: 22 January 2024
• Parties: STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL A. GURULE, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

1

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL A. GURULE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. A-1-CA-41313

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

January 22, 2024

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY Jason Lidyard, District Court Judge

Raul Torrez, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Peter James O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellant

The Marlowe Law Firm Daniel L. Marlowe Santa Fe, NM for Appellee

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JANE B. YOHALEM, JUDGE

{¶1} The State appeals the district court's order denying the State's petition to revoke Defendant's probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm the district court's decision. The State

2

has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

{¶2} The State continues to argue that it has a constitutional right to appeal. Relying on State v. Horton, 2008-NMCA-061, ¶ 1, 144 N.M. 71, 183 P.3d 956, the State asserts that this Court must decide the merits of the issue raised in order to determine whether there is a constitutional right to appeal. [MIO 2] We disagree that a review of the merits regarding whether the district court abused its discretion is required here. We note that Horton is distinguishable from this case because it does not involve the denial of a petition to revoke probation. In addition, as acknowledged in our notice of proposed disposition, the district court exercising its discretionary authority to dismiss a petition to revoke probation does not act "contrary to law" for purposes of determining whether the State has a constitutional right to appeal the dismissal. [CN 3-4] See State v. Grossetete, 2008-NMCA-088, ¶ 10, 144 N.M. 346, 187 P.3d 692 (concluding the state had no constitutional right to appeal the district court's decision denying a petition to revoke probation and concluding that the disposition was not contrary to law because it was within the district court's discretion and authority to decide that the probation should not be revoked); see also State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 9, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040 (providing that the state must demonstrate that the district court's ruling is contrary to law, rather than a discretionary application of the law to the facts).

3

{¶3} In its memorandum in opposition, the State identifies four reasons it believes the district court's decision was contrary to law, despite having been an exercise of its discretionary authority. First, the State asserts that the district court's disposition amounts to an abuse of discretion because it disregarded undisputed facts and because it made a finding that is not supported by substantial evidence. [MIO 5] In Grossetete, this Court addressed a similar situation. There, the petition to revoke the defendant's probation was based on reports from probation officers that Defendant had tested positive for drugs, been terminated from a drug treatment program, possessed drugs, and had contact with inmates-all of which was prohibited under the terms of his probation. Grossetete, 2008-NMCA-088, ¶ 6. The evidence in Grossetete was uncontested. Id. ¶ 7. Looking to the...