State v. Salgado
| Decision Date | 23 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 12598,12598 |
| Citation | 817 P.2d 730,1991 NMCA 44,112 N.M. 537 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eutimio Jesse SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
In this case assigned to the general calendar, defendant filed a motion to amend his docketing statement at the same time that he filed his brief-in-chief. The motion sought to add additional facts of which counsel had become aware by reviewing the transcript after the case was assigned to the general calendar. We deny the motion. In appeals filed after July 1, 1990, and assigned to the general calendar, amendments to docketing statements are unnecessary.
July 1, 1990, was the effective date of the amendment to SCRA 1986, 12-213(A)(3), appearing in the 1990 cumulative supplement to judicial pamphlet 12. See In re the Amendment of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Supreme Court Order No. 8000 Misc. (March 7, 1990). Rule 12-213(A)(3), as it now reads, does not limit briefs (which are filed only in cases on a non-summary calendar) to issues in the docketing statement. Cf. SCRA 1986, 12-213(A)(3) (Orig.Pamp.) ("A party shall be restricted to arguing only issues contained in the docketing statement."). Thus, the docketing statement no longer governs the issues that may be raised on a non-summary calendar. See Gallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency, 108 N.M. 722, 731, 779 P.2d 99, 108 (1989) (). The rule change overrules our prior decisions regarding amendments to the docketing statement in cases on a non-summary calendar. See, e.g., State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 128-30, 782 P.2d 91, 100-02 (Ct.App.1989).
In addition, insofar as the docketing statement acts as a substitute for the record in presenting facts to this court in proceedings on the summary calendar, see State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 647 P.2d 403 (1982); State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1 (Ct.App.1985), that purpose of the docketing statement is superseded by the record on appeal once the case is on the general calendar. On general calendar, we can consider any evidence in the record on appeal even if not noted in the docketing statement, and we do not consider factual assertions in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc.
...to those raised in the docketing statement ... unless the appellee would be prejudiced"); State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044, ¶ 3, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (stating that, for cases assigned to the general calendar, "we can consider any evidence in the record on appeal even if not noted in th......
-
State v. House, 20,438.
... ... Accord State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 128, 782 P.2d 91, 100 (Ct.App.1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (Ct.App.1991) ; Landgraf, 1996-NMCA-024, ¶¶ 31, 38, 121 N.M. 445, 913 P.2d 252 (recognizing and applying the "`one death, one homicide conviction' rule") ... 4. Section 66-8-101(D) is not unconstitutionally ambiguous ... ...
-
Eldorado at Santa Fe, Inc. v. Cook
... ... Hoback, Rod Hall, Ramona Sholder, and Donlad ... Woodman, who is also known as Donald ... Woodman, Petitioners-Appellees, ... S.E. Reynolds, State Engineer, Respondent-Appellee ... No. 11218 ... Court of Appeals of New Mexico ... Oct. 11, 1991 ... Certiorari Denied Nov. 20, 1991 ... See DeTevis v. Aragon, 104 N.M. 793, 727 P.2d 558 (Ct.App.1986). Cf. State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (App.1991) (holding that for appeals filed after July 1, 1990, and assigned to the general calendar, amendments to ... ...
-
State v. Vargas
... ... Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, 42, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91,Page 8overruled on other grounds State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730. The issues sought to be amended must also be viable. Id. (defining viable as an "argument that was colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any merit"); see also State v. Sommer, 1994-NMCA-070, 11, 118 N.M. 58, 878 P.2d ... ...