October 24, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Tyler James Serrano, No. A-1-CA-36866

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

fe)
6)

7
8)

id
11
12
13
14
15
16)
17
18)
19)
20

21

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 is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
STATE OF NEW MEXICO i= 9:08 AM
Plaintiff-A ppell ~£e4
ant Ppel an, Mark Reynolds
v. No. A-1-CA-36866
TYLER J AMES SERRANO,
Defendant- Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

Alisa A. Hart, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attomey General
Anita Carson, Assistant Attomey General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
John Bennett, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
{i} The State appeals the district court’s order sanctioning the State for violating

its discovery obligations under Rule 5-409(F)(2) NMRA. We dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.

2
BACKGROUND	1
{2} After filing a criminal complaint against Defendant Tyler Serrano, the State	2
filed a motion for pretrial detention under Rule 5-409. Finding the State failed to	3
comply with its discovery obligations under the rule, the district court sanctioned the	4
State in the amount of $500. This appeal followed.	5
{3} Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the	6
facts and procedural background, we reserve discussion of the pertinent facts within	7
the context of the State’s arguments.	8
DISCUSSION	9
{4} As a threshold matter, we must first resolve the question of whether we have	10
jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal challenging the district court’s sanction. The	11
State does not argue we have jurisdiction to hear its appeal under its right to appeal	12
by statute or rule. See State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 7, 138 N.M. 441, 121	13
P.3d 1040 (“The [s]tate’s right to appeal an adverse ruling in a criminal proceeding	14
exists only by constitutional provision, statute, or rule.”). Rather, the State argues it	15
has a constitutional right to appeal the district court’s sanction order. “In considering	16
whether the [s]tate has a constitutional right to appeal, we look at whether the district	17
court’s disposition was contrary to law.” State v. Grossetete, 2008-NMCA-088, ¶ 5,	18
144 N.M. 346, 187 P.3d 692. “[A]s a practical matter, we must decide the merits of	19

3
the issues the [s]tate raises in order to determine if it has a constitutional right to	1
appeal.” State v. Horton, 2008-NMCA-061, ¶ 1, 144 N.M. 71, 183 P.3d 956.	2
{5} The State argues the district court’s sanction order was “contrary to law”	3
because: (1) the district court misinterpreted the scope of the State’s discovery	4
obligations under Rule 5-409(F)(2); and (2) although the district court sanctioned	5
the State under its inherent power to sanction, it provided insufficient notice for the	6
subsequent sanction and erred in imposing a monetary sanction without making	7
findings regarding bad faith, prejudice, or its consideration of less severe	8
alternatives. We address both arguments in turn to determine whether the State has	9
a constitutional right to appeal.	10
Standard of Review	11
{6} “[District] courts possess broad discretionary authority to decide what	12
sanction to impose when a discovery order is violated.” State v. Le Mier, 2017-	13
NMSC-017, ¶ 22, 394 P.3d 959. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is	14
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.” Id.	15
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, “we may characterize	16
as an abuse of discretion a discretionary decision that is premised on a	17
misapprehension of the law.” Harrison v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 2013-	18
NMCA-105, ¶ 14, 311 P.3d 1236 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	19

4
When the district court acts within its discretionary authority, its disposition is not	1
contrary to law. Grossetete, 2008-NMCA-088, ¶ 10.	2
The District Court Did Not Misinterpret the Scope of Rule 5-409(F)(2)	3
{7} The State first argues the district court’s sanction order was contrary to law	4
because it misinterpreted the scope of Rule 5-409(F)(2). We note that although the	5
State appears, at times, to limit its argument to an interpretation predicated on the	6
2019 version of Rule 5-409(F)(2), the district court considered the State’s pretrial	7
detention motion well before the 2019 amendments came into effect. Compare	8
Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-005 (2017) (adopting Rule 5-409 “effective for	9
all cases pending or filed on or after July 1, 2017”), with Supreme Court Order No.	10
18-8300-024 (2018) (amending Rule 5-409 “effective for all cases pending or filed	11
on or after February 1, 2019”). We therefore review the district court’s order under	12
the 2017 version of Rule 5-409(F)(2).	13
{8} Rule 5-409(F)(2) (2017) provided that “[a]t least twenty-four (24) hours	14
before the hearing, the prosecutor shall provide the defendant with all evidence	15
relating to the motion for pretrial detention that is in the possession of the prosecutor	16
or is reasonably available to the prosecutor.” (Emphasis added.)1 Further, the rule	17
1The current version limits the State’s disclosure obligations to “all evidence
that the prosecutor intends to rely on at the hearing” at least twenty-four hours prior
to the hearing. Rule 5-409(F)(2)(a)(i), (b) (emphasis added).

5
required the State to disclose “[a]ll exculpatory evidence known to the prosecutor[.]”	1
Id.	2
{9} In its pretrial detention motion, the State noted Defendant’s criminal history,	3
referenced surveillance video of the incident, and mentioned that there are	4
“cooperative victims who are willing to testify against . . . Defendant.” Additionally,	5
the State provided, with the motion, a warrant and criminal complaint for the current	6
charge, a public safety assessment of Defendant, and a booking sheet from the	7
Bernalillo County Detention Center showing his current charge. In the criminal	8
complaint, the affiant police officer mentioned his use of video surveillance as well	9
as Motor Vehicle Division (MVD), and booking photos to identify Defendant. After	10
the State filed its pretrial detention motion, the district court entered a discovery	11
order directing the State to disclose “all evidence relating to the [m]otion for	12
[p]retrial [d]etention that is in the possession of the prosecution or is reasonably	13
available to the prosecution, including that evidence in the possession of law	14
enforcement that is reasonably available to the prosecution.” The district court	15
further ordered that “[a]ll exculpatory evidence known to the prosecutor must be	16
disclosed[,]” that these disclosures “must be provided at least twenty-four (24) hours	17
before the [pretrial detention] hearing[,]” and that “[t]he failure to comply with this	18
[o]rder may result in sanctions.” After the district court entered its discovery order,	19
the State provided Defendant with criminal complaints for several past offenses.	20

6
{10} During the hearing on the State’s pretrial detention motion, defense counsel	1
explained that he did not receive the discovery until the morning of the hearing	2
because the State sent it to the wrong attorney in defense counsel’s office, and that	3
the State had still not provided a police report, surveillance video, or witness	4
statements. The State acknowledged that it had provided only criminal complaints	5
to Defendant. However, the State explained that it intended to rely solely upon the	6
complaints, which defense counsel had “equal access” to online. The State further	7
explained that although it referenced the video surveillance in its pretrial detention	8
motion, it did not have video evidence in its possession and was not presenting such	9
evidence during the hearing. The district court sanctioned the State for failing to	10
comply with its discovery obligations, noting that the State did not disclose the	11
surveillance video referred to in its motion nor present witness statements at the	12
hearing, despite its assertion that “cooperative victims” were willing to testify.	13
{11} Following the hearing, the State provided a surveillance video and	14
photographs of Defendant, and filed a motion to reconsider the district court’s	15
sanction order. In its order denying the State’s motion to reconsider, the district court	16
concluded that notwithstanding the State’s intent to rely solely upon the criminal	17
complaints during the hearing, it was obligated to provide video surveillance,	18
photographs, and witness statements prior to the hearing, as they were “relied upon	19
and referenced” in the State’s pretrial detention motion and the attached criminal	20

7
complaint. Further, the district court noted that “it is still not clear that the State has	1
produced all photographs and surveillance video related to this case.” Accordingly,	2
the district court denied the State’s motion to reconsider.	3
{12} Based on the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the district	4
court’s sanction order was an abuse of its discretion. Although the State indicated it	5
intended to rely solely upon the criminal complaints at the hearing, the district court	6
required the timely provision of evidence referenced in the pretrial detention motion.	7
See Rule 5-409(F)(2) (2017) (requiring the State to provide “all evidence relating to	8
the motion for pretrial detention that is in the possession of the prosecutor or is	9
reasonably available to the prosecutor” at least twenty-four hours before the pretrial	10
detention hearing (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we conclude the district court’s	11
sanction order was not contrary to law. See Grossetete, 2008-NMCA-088, ¶ 10	12
(explaining that a disposition is not contrary to law when “the district court acted	13
within its discretionary authority”).	14
The District Court Did Not Err in Imposing a Monetary Sanction	15
{13} Having concluded the district court’s interpretation of the State’s discovery	16
obligations under Rule 5-409(F)(2) (2017) was not contrary to law, we now turn to	17
whether the district court’s monetary sanction was contrary to law. As the State	18
notes, Rule 5-409 does not provide for sanctions for violations of its discovery	19
requirements. Nevertheless, the district court retains inherent authority to “sanction	20

8
parties and attorneys to ensure compliance with the proceedings of the court.”	1
Harrison, 2013-NMCA-105, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);	2
In re Jade G., 2001-NMCA-058, ¶ 27, 130 N.M. 687, 30 P.3d 376 (explaining that	3
“even though specific judicial authority is not delineated by statute, or stated in a	4
rule of court, a court may exercise authority that is essential to the court’s fulfilling	5
its judicial functions[, and that] [t]his authority embraces the ability of a court to	6
control its docket and the proceedings before it”).	7
{14} The State first argues the district court’s discovery order provided insufficient	8
notice that sanctions would be imposed based on its interpretation of the scope of	9
Rule 5-409(F)(2) (2017). However, the State relies on Rule 5-112 NMRA, which	10
provides procedural requirements before imposing sanctions for criminal contempt	11
of court. (Emphasis added.) As the State neither argues the district court’s sanction	12
rose to the level of a punishment for criminal contempt of court, nor cites authority	13
supporting its argument that Rule 5-112’s procedural requirements apply outside the	14
context of criminal contempt sanctions, we decline to review this argument further.	15
See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21, 278 P.3d 1031 (explaining that	16
appellate courts do not review unclear or undeveloped arguments, and that where a	17
party cites to no supporting authority, we assume none exists).	18
{15} Next, the State argues the district court was obligated, but failed, to consider	19
whether the State’s failure to comply with the discovery order was willful or in bad	20

9
faith, whether it was prejudicial, and whether there were less severe sanctions. Our	1
Supreme Court has recognized that district courts have the inherent authority “to	2
avail themselves of, and impose, meaningful sanctions where discovery orders are	3
not obeyed and a party’s conduct injects needless delay into the proceedings.” Le	4
Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 16 (citing State ex rel. N.M. State Highway & Transp.	5
Dep’t v. Baca, 1995-NMSC-033, ¶ 11, 120 N.M. 1, 896 P.2d 1148). When a district	6
court imposes sanctions for discovery violations, it must evaluate culpability,	7
prejudice, and lesser sanctions and must explain its decision. Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-	8
017, ¶ 20. However, the Le Mier Court clarified that to justify a district court’s	9
sanction, these considerations need not all weigh in favor of the sanction. Id.	10
{16} Here, the district court appropriately weighed the State’s culpability, finding	11
that “[t]he [s]tate failed to adequately provide discovery in advance of the hearing,	12
as was required by the [district c]ourt’s [d]iscovery [o]rder[,]” and that the State	13
“demonstrated a gross indifference to [its] discovery obligation[.]” See id. ¶ 24	14
(concluding that the “a single violation of a discovery order may suffice to support	15
a finding of culpability”). The district court also considered whether the State’s	16
conduct prejudiced Defendant because defense counsel did not timely receive the	17
discovery. See id. ¶ 25 (concluding that the defendant was prejudiced after the state’s	18
failure to comply with the district court’s discovery order caused the court to reset	19
trial, thereby “needlessly delaying [the defendant’s] proverbial ‘day in court’ ”).	20

10
Finally, the district court evaluated whether the sanction imposed was the least	1
severe sanction. The district court is not “obligated to consider every conceivable	2
lesser sanction[,]” but must instead “fashion the least severe sanction that best fit the	3
situation and which accomplished the desired result.” Id. ¶ 27. The district court met	4
its obligation when it imposed a monetary sanction rather than the dismissal sought	5
by Defendant. See id. ¶ 29 (holding that a sanction is the least severe sanction in the	6
light of the circumstances when “the district court responded to [a] specific violation	7
at issue with a sanction tailored to fit that violation”). We therefore conclude the	8
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the monetary sanction against	9
the State.	10
{17} The State cites Baca for the proposition that the district court was required to	11
find the State willfully violated its discovery obligation and/or did so in bad faith.	12
1995-NMSC-033, ¶ 12. However, the State’s reliance is misplaced, as Baca required	13
such findings when awarding attorney fees as a sanction. See id. (holding that a court	14
may “award attorney[] fees as a sanction for bad faith or vexatious litigation or for	15
defiance of a court order”). As the State has failed to cite authority requiring such	16
findings outside the context of awarding attorney fees as a sanction, we assume no	17
such authority exists, and we decline to review this argument further. See Fernandez	18
v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 1993-NMSC-035, ¶ 15, 115 N.M. 622, 857 P.2d 22	19
(“The general rule is that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.”	20

11
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-	1
NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (“We assume where arguments in	2
briefs are unsupported by cited authority, counsel after diligent search, was unable	3
to find any supporting authority. We therefore will not do this research for counsel.	4
Issues raised in appellate briefs which are unsupported by cited authority will not be	5
reviewed by us on appeal.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we conclude the district	6
court’s order was not a disposition contrary to law, and therefore the State does not	7
have a constitutional right to appeal.	8
CONCLUSION	9
{18} Because the district court’s sanction order was not a disposition contrary to	10
law, we dismiss the State’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Grossetete, 2008-	11
NMCA-088, ¶ 15 (dismissing the state’s appeal because the district court’s order	12
was not contrary to law and thus the state did not have a constitutional right to	13
appeal).	14
{19} IT IS SO ORDERED.	15
______________________________	16
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	17

1
WE CONCUR:
2
MN2 -
3
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
4 5
Jacqueline R. Medina
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
12