State v. Steven B.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 23771, 23747, 23509, 23741.,23771, 23747, 23509, 23741. |
| Citation | 136 N.M. 111,94 P.3d 854,2004 NMCA 86 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner-Appellee, v. STEVEN B., Respondent-Appellant. State of New Mexico, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gabriel C., Respondent-Appellant. State of New Mexico, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Gerald L., Respondent-Appellant. State of New Mexico, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Matthew S., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Santa Fe, M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, for Appellee.
John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Trace L. Rabern, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for Appellants.
Certiorari Denied, No. 28,775, July 8, 2004.
{1} In this opinion, we consolidate four appeals brought individually by Steven B., Gabriel C., Gerald L., and Matthew S. (children), challenging the Grade Court program (grade court) operated by the children's court in San Juan County. Because children did not preserve the issue of whether grade court as a whole is authorized by the Children's Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-1-1 to -21-7 (1993, as amended through 1999) (Code), we confine our opinion to the narrow issue of whether the Code authorizes the children's court to order detention for violation of grade court. We also determine that one child, Gabriel, did not preserve two additional issues, concerning his guilty plea and the length of his probation. We affirm the orders of detention entered by the children's court for all four children.
{2} We detail each child's individual facts in our discussion of each case. All children, however, have certain facts in common: Each child pled guilty to a criminal offense. Each was subsequently ordered by then Judge Paul R. Onuska to participate in grade court as a condition of release, pending sentencing; Steven and Gabriel were later placed on probation with grade court included in their conditions of probation. Each child signed the same form detailing the grade court conditions; the form is entitled Grade Court Order Setting Conditions of Probation/Release (grade court order).
{3} The grade court order sets the following conditions:
{4} The consequences of failure to follow certain conditions of probation were likewise set out in detail.
{5} Signature lines for child, child's parent or guardian, juvenile probation officer or grade court officer, and the children's court judge are contained at the end of the form. Each child, on numerous occasions, violated one or more of these grade court conditions. Consequently, each was ordered detained for specified periods.
{6} This Court previously considered two other appeals related to grade court where lack of preservation left us unable to review the issue of whether grade court was authorized: State v. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶¶ 7-10, 134 N.M. 232, 75 P.3d 832, cert. granted on other grounds, 134 N.M. 179, 74 P.3d 1071 (2003), and State v. Andrew A., No. 22,891, slip op. at 4-5 (N.M.Ct.App. Oct. 7, 2003). See Rule 12-216(A) NMRA 2004. We explained the importance of preservation in this Court's ability to meet its primary role of correcting trial error. Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 7. We stressed that it is not our role to arrive at conclusions without the issues having been raised below. Id. To the contrary, it is essential to this Court's ability to make informed decisions that a party alert the trial court to an alleged error. Id. In addition, the preservation rule gives the opposing party a fair opportunity to show the court why it should rule against the objector. Garcia ex rel. Garcia v. La Farge, M.D., 119 N.M. 532, 540, 893 P.2d 428, 436 (1995).
{7} Lack of preservation continues to plague these grade court appeals. Similar to the approach taken by Joanna and Andrew, each child, on appeal, contends that he was deprived of his right to notice and a hearing on his grade court violations; each child's counsel, however, in the process of appearing and responding to the violations, failed to object to either notice or a hearing. As such, we find the due process arguments are not preserved, and we therefore do not consider them. See Joanna V., 2003-NMCA-100, ¶ 8; see also State v. Singleton, 2001-NMCA-054, ¶ 11, 130 N.M. 583, 28 P.3d 1124 (). Furthermore, we reviewed the transcripts of eight grade court appearances during which detentions were ordered. At six appearances, the children's court expressly asked counsel whether the child wanted a hearing on grade court violations, and counsel specifically declined a hearing. And at the two appearances wherein the children's court did not ask whether the child wanted a hearing on grade court violations, the child's attorney did not request one; nor was an objection made.
{8} Appellate co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.M. ex rel. F.M. v. Holmes
... ... Id. After November 8, 2011, F.M. did not return to CMS. C. Procedural History On November 30, 2011, A.M. filed a lawsuit in New Mexico state court against Ms. LaBarge, Ms. MinesHornbeck, and Officer Acosta. A.M. alleged in the complaint that the defendants deprived F.M. of his civil rights ... to the center with or without restraints. See, e.g. , State v. Steven B. , 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854, 862 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) ([The minor] objected ... that failure to turn in paperwork did not meet the criteria for ... ...
-
Acosta v. Shell W. Exploration & Prod., Inc.
...59, 162 P.3d 896, and we begin that task by parsing the plain language of the rule. See State v. Steven B., 2004–NMCA–086, ¶ 15, 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854 (“Our starting point is the plain language of the statute.”). Additionally, to determine whether Rule 11–606(B) protects the juror affid......
-
State v. Torres
...59, 162 P.3d 896, and we begin that task by parsing the plain language of the rule. See State v. Steven B., 2004–NMCA–086, ¶ 15, 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854 (“Our starting point is the plain language of the statute.”).Plain Language of Rule 5–801(A) {13} Although neither party raises the issu......
-
State v. Dylan A.
...now governed by NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-23(G) (2005), following amendments to the statute. See State v. Steven B., 2004-NMCA-086, ¶ 11, 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854 (noting that "we review the version of the Code in effect during the course of children's proceedings"). According to Section 32A-2-23......