State v. Lucero
| Decision Date | 06 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-38468 |
| Citation | 508 P.3d 917 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank A. LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Laurie Blevins, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Frank A. Lucero, Roswell, NM, Pro Se Appellant
YOHALEM, Judge {1} Defendant Frank Lucero was charged with four misdemeanor traffic offenses in magistrate court. After a jury trial where Defendant was convicted on all counts, Defendant appealed to the district court for a trial de novo. Defendant was tried in the district court and again convicted on all counts.
{2} Defendant claims, for the first time on appeal to this Court, that the magistrate court lost subject matter jurisdiction when it denied him access to the names and addresses of jurors and potential jurors before trial. We conclude that Defendant's claim does not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the magistrate court, and, therefore, may not be raised for the first time on appeal to this Court.
{3} Defendant next seeks review of the district court's denial of his pretrial motions alleging reversible legal error by the magistrate court, and seeking remand to the magistrate court for a new trial. Defendant contends that the district court erred in reviewing the magistrate court proceedings under an abuse of discretion standard, rather than conducting an independent review on a reconstructed record as Defendant claims is required by our Supreme Court's decision in City of Farmington v. Piñon-Garcia , 2013-NMSC-046, 311 P. 3d 446. While we agree that Piñon-Garcia requires review of certain magistrate court orders by hearing de novo, we read Piñon-Garcia as limiting such review to orders of the magistrate court dismissing or refusing to dismiss the charges, or imposing or refusing to impose sanctions, for violation of procedural protections or constitutional rights. See id. ¶¶ 2, 11, 13. Appellate review is otherwise by trial de novo. See id. ¶ 2. Defendant's pretrial motions, which claimed reversible legal error by the magistrate court and sought remand to the magistrate court for a new trial, do not fall within Piñon -Garcia ’s limited exception, and the remedy sought by Defendant—remand for a new trial in the magistrate court—is not a remedy available to the district court in an appeal from magistrate court. Thus, Defendant's only method of appeal from the magistrate court rulings he challenges is by trial de novo in the district court, which he received. We affirm Defendant's convictions.
BACKGROUND
{4} Defendant was charged in the Chaves County magistrate court with one misdemeanor traffic violation and three petty misdemeanor violations.1 Defendant entered a plea of not guilty as to each charge and requested a jury trial.
{5} Two days before trial, Defendant requested copies of jury questionnaires from the magistrate court clerk. The clerk informed Defendant that the magistrate court required a copying fee, totaling $38.50, for copies of the jury questionnaires. Defendant told the court clerk that he was indigent, and requested free copies. The clerk informed Defendant that he would have to submit proof of indigency in order to qualify for free copies. Defendant has not alleged that he was denied an opportunity to review the questionnaires, only that he was denied free copies.
{6} The day before jury selection and trial, Defendant filed a completed "verified application for free process (for indigency)" on a form provided by the magistrate court, along with a motion to continue, asking to postpone his trial. The next morning, with the jury panel already in the courtroom for jury selection, the magistrate court orally denied Defendant's motion to continue his trial. The case then proceeded to jury selection and trial. Defendant, who appeared pro se, was permitted to question the jury panel and participate in jury selection. Once the jury was selected, Defendant was tried and convicted on all four counts.
{7} Defendant appealed his convictions to the Chaves County district court. Defendant then filed a pretrial motion in district court requesting appellate review of the magistrate court clerk's refusal to provide him free copies of the jury questionnaires and of the magistrate court's denial of his motion to continue his trial. Defendant also requested supplementation of the record on appeal in the district court with copies of the jury questionnaires. Defendant claimed that he was entitled to an independent review by the district court of the merits of the magistrate court's refusal to provide him free copies of jury questionnaires, and the ruling denying him a trial continuance. He claimed error by the magistrate court in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 38-5-11(C) (2005) (), as well as violation of his right to due process, and sought reversal of his convictions, and remand to the magistrate court for retrial.
{8} The district court agreed to review Defendant's pretrial motion to determine if there was reversible error in the magistrate court. The district court conducted a detailed review of the magistrate court proceedings, and heard argument on the merits from both parties. With respect to the magistrate court clerk's refusal to provide free copies of the jury questionnaires, the district court concluded that, although Section 38-5-11(C) requires that jury questionnaires be "made available for inspection and copying by a party to a pending proceeding[,]" the magistrate court correctly construed the statute to allow a fee to be assessed for copying, and to allow the court to require compliance with its procedure for verifying indigency before providing free copies. With respect to the magistrate court's denial of Defendant's motion for a continuance of trial, the district court found that the magistrate court "was well within its discretion" to deny the motion for a continuance.
{9} Having denied Defendant's pretrial motion, the district court held a de novo jury trial. Defendant was given free copies of the district court jury questionnaires prior to voir dire. Defendant was again convicted on all four counts.
{10} On appeal to this Court, Defendant has not raised any claim of error in the de novo trial leading to his conviction in the district court. He challenges only the district court's denial of his pretrial motions for reversal and remand to the magistrate court for retrial.
DISCUSSION
{11} We begin by addressing Defendant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal to this Court, that the magistrate court lost subject matter jurisdiction by proceeding to trial with an "anonymous" jury. We do not agree with Defendant's characterization of the jury as "anonymous." We understand Defendant's claim as simply a restatement of his claims that he was denied copies of the jury questionnaires containing the jurors names and addresses prior to jury selection, and was not able to supplement the record in the district court with the questionnaires because they had been destroyed pursuant to court rule prior to his request. The "question of whether a trial court has jurisdiction in a particular case is a question of law that we review de novo." Smith v. City of Santa Fe , 2007-NMSC-055, ¶ 10, 142 N.M. 786, 171 P.3d 300.
{12} Defendant is correct that an attack on subject matter jurisdiction may be made at any time in the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. See State ex rel. Bevacqua-Young v. Steele , 2017-NMCA-081, ¶ 6, 406 P.3d 547. Further, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the magistrate court would also remove jurisdiction from the district court. See State v. Lynch , 1971-NMCA-049, ¶ 7, 82 N.M. 532, 484 P.2d 374. We thus review jurisdiction as a threshold question. See Bevacqua-Young , 2017-NMCA-081, ¶ 6, 406 P.3d 547 .
{13} "Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to adjudicate the general questions involved in the claim." Williams v. Rio Rancho Pub. Schs. , 2008-NMCA-150, ¶ 10, 145 N.M. 214, 195 P.3d 879 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Jurisdiction is controlled by the Constitution and the Legislature. See State v. Smallwood , 2007-NMSC-005, ¶ 6, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 ().
{14} The source of a magistrate court's jurisdiction is Article VI, Section 26 of the New Mexico Constitution, and the statutes implementing that section. Article VI, Section 26 provides, in relevant part: "The [L]egislature shall establish a magistrate court to exercise limited original jurisdiction as may be provided by law." The Legislature has provided by statute that "[m]agistrates have jurisdiction in all cases of misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors[.]" NMSA 1978, § 35-3-4(A) (1985).
{15} Because the motor vehicle offenses with which Defendant was charged are misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors, the magistrate court had subject matter jurisdiction. See id. A violation of a constitutional or statutory right in the proceedings before a court usually does not deprive that court of jurisdiction. Instead, generally speaking, "[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the matter before the court falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or statute." State v. Chavarria , 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 11, 146 N.M. 251, 208 P.3d 896 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)...
To continue reading
Request your trial