December 14, 2021- State of New Mexico v. Felicia J. Peru, No. A-1-CA-39149

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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
Opinion Number: _____________	2
Filing Date: December 14, 2021	3
No. A-1-CA-39149	4
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,	5
Plaintiff-Appellee,	6
v.	7
FELICIA J. PERU,	8
Defendant-Appellant.	9
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY	10
Tom F. Stewart, District Judge	11
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	12
Benjamin L. Lammons, Assistant Attorney General	13
Santa Fe, NM	14
for Appellee	15
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender	16
Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender	17
Santa Fe, NM	18
for Appellant	19
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 12/14/2021 2:07 PM

OPINION	1
HANISEE, Chief Judge.	2
{1} 	Defendant appeals the district court order continuing her probation, arguing	3
that the district court violated her right to due process by denying her motion to	4
appear in person at an adjudicatory hearing on the State’s motion to revoke her	5
probation. In denying Defendant’s motion, the district court relied on New Mexico	6
Supreme Court Order No. 20-8500-013 (the Supreme Court Order), in which the	7
Court set forth procedures related to the function of judicial proceedings in light of	8
the burgeoning COVID-19 pandemic. See Supreme Court Order No. 20-8500-013 (April 16,	9
2020), 	https://www.nmcourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Order-No_-20-8500-013-Updating-	10
and-Consolidating-Precautionary-Measures-for-Court-Operations-in-NM-Judiciary-4-16-20.pdf. For the	11
reasons that follow, we affirm.	12
BACKGROUND	13
{2} 	Between May 2019 and January 2020, the State filed three different petitions	14
to revoke Defendant’s probation, alleging Defendant’s various failures to comply	15
with her probation requirements. On March 11, 2020, following the State’s third	16
petition to revoke probation, the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a public health	17
emergency in New Mexico.1 On April 16, 2020, our Supreme Court announced the	18
Supreme Court Order, updating precautionary measures for court operation in the	19
1See State of N.M., Executive Order 2020-004 (March 11, 2020) https://cv.nmhealth.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/Executive-Order-2020-004.pdf.

2
New Mexico Judiciary during the COVID-19 public health emergency, which is at	1
issue in this case. In pertinent part, the Supreme Court Order provides that “[a]ll	2
judges shall use telephonic or audio-visual attendance for court appearances by	3
attorneys, litigants, witnesses, and the press unless there is an emergency need for	4
an in-person appearance upon motion of a party.” Supreme Court Order No. 20-	5
8500-013 at 4.	6
{3} 	In May 2020, Defendant filed a motion requesting to appear in person at an	7
upcoming adjudicatory hearing on the State’s motion to revoke her probation. The	8
district court denied Defendant’s motion and stated within its findings that no	9
emergency need existed in the case. Following the adjudicatory hearing, at which	10
Defendant appeared via audio-visual connection, the district court filed its order	11
continuing Defendant’s probation and Defendant subsequently filed her notice of	12
appeal. The State filed a fourth petition to revoke Defendant’s probation, alleging	13
continued violations. Following a hearing on the State’s motion, the district court	14
filed an order in which it unsatisfactorily discharged Defendant from probation and	15
released Defendant from the Grant County Detention Center.	16

3
DISCUSSION	1
{4} 	We 	observe 	at 	the outset 	that 	because 	Defendant 	was 	unsatisfactorily	2
discharged from probation and subsequently released on the district court’s order,	3
this case presents no actual controversy, and we are unable to grant any actual relief.	4
Indeed, Defendant states that “[s]he does not ask this Court to reinstate her to	5
probation. She asks simply for this Court to hold that she had a right to appear in	6
person at her [adjudicatory] hearing, and that that right was violated.” Thus, this case	7
appears to be moot. See Gunaji v. Macias, 2001-NMSC-028, ¶ 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31	8
P.3d 1008 (“A case is moot when no actual controversy exists, and the court cannot	9
grant actual relief.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Even if a case	10
is moot, we have discretion to “review moot cases that present issues of substantial	11
public interest or which are capable of repetition yet evade review.” Id. ¶ 10.	12
Recognizing the likelihood that this Court will be asked to resolve future cases that	13
are similarly related to the district court’s application of the Supreme Court Order—	14
or other similar orders from our Supreme Court related to COVID-19—we address	15
below the merits of Defendant’s appeal.	16
{5} 	Here, Defendant’s primary argument is that the district court misinterpreted	17
the Supreme Court Order and, in so doing, violated Defendant’s rights to due process	18
by denying her motion to appear in person at an adjudicatory hearing.2 Defendant	19
2 Defendant argues as well that there was insufficient evidence of a violation
to support the district court’s revocation of her probation. Defendant fails to develop

4
does not argue that the Supreme Court Order itself is erroneous or unconstitutional,	1
but rather that the district court erred in its interpretation and application of the	2
Supreme Court Order. Defendant asserts that because she filed motions requesting	3
in-person proceedings, the district court was required under the Supreme Court	4
Order to grant such motions and hold in-person proceedings. Indeed, Defendant	5
contends that “[w]hen [she] insisted on appearing in person, the district court needed	6
to conduct the hearing in person, with appropriate safeguards to protect everyone	7
from [the C]oronavirus.” Defendant misapprehends the Supreme Court Order.	8
{6} 	The Supreme Court Order states that “[a]ll judges shall use telephonic or	9
audio-visual attendance for court appearances by attorneys, litigants, witnesses, and	10
the press unless there is an emergency need for an in-person appearance upon motion	11
of a party.” Supreme Court Order No. 20-8500-013 at 4 (emphasis added). The	12
Supreme Court Order further provides that the district court has discretion to order	13
in-person appearances “on the judge’s own initiative, without a motion by a party,	14
this argument with any explanation or analysis, citation to the record, or citation to
relevant authority, and we therefore consider the argument to be undeveloped and
decline to address it further. See Corona v. Corona, 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28, 329
P.3d 701 (“This Court has no duty to review an argument that is not adequately
developed.”); see In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676
P.2d 1329 (“We have long held that to present an issue on appeal for review, an
appellant must submit argument and authority as required by rule. We assume where
arguments in briefs are unsupported by cited authority, counsel after diligent search,
was unable to find any supporting authority. [T]herefore[, we] will not do this
research for counsel. Issues raised in appellate briefs which are unsupported by cited
authority will not be reviewed by us on appeal.” (citations omitted)).

5
provided that the judge shall confer with the parties and the chief judge of the district	1
before proceeding with an in-person appearance.” Supreme Court Order No. 20-	2
8500-013 at 4. Specifically related to criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court	3
Order provides that “[a]ny criminal procedure rules requiring the presence of the	4
defendant may be accomplished through remote, audio-visual appearance in the	5
discretion of the judge, provided that confidential communication between the	6
defendant and defense counsel is made available[.]” Supreme Court Order No. 20-	7
8500-013 at 4.	8
{7} 	Under these provisions, the district court has discretion to require in-person	9
appearances within certain parameters or when moved to do so by a party asserting	10
an emergency need to appear in person. The Supreme Court Order does not require	11
the district court to grant a defendant’s motion for in-person proceedings where such	12
motion fails to present an emergency need. Defendant’s motion did not assert an	13
emergency need for Defendant to appear in person; rather it merely asserted a	14
general constitutional right to appear in person for probation revocation proceedings.	15
Moreover, Defendant fails to articulate on appeal that her motion was supported by	16
an emergency need and provides no authority to support her implicit assertion that	17
her desire to exercise her right to appear in person at proceedings constituted an	18
emergency. Because Defendant fails to establish that her motions were supported by	19
emergency need, contrary to the district court’s findings, we can assign no error to	20
the district court’s compliance with the Supreme Court Order. See State v. Aragon,	21

6
1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (explaining that “[t]here is a	1
presumption of correctness in the district court’s rulings” and that it is a defendant’s	2
“burden on appeal to demonstrate any claimed error below” (alterations, internal	3
quotation marks, and citation omitted)); see also Martinez v. Sw. Landfills, Inc.,	4
1993-NMCA-020, ¶ 18, 115 N.M. 181, 848 P.2d 1108 (“[A]n appellant is bound by	5
the findings of fact made below unless the appellant properly attacks the findings,	6
and that the appellant remains bound if he or she fails to properly set forth all the	7
evidence bearing upon the findings.”). We therefore hold that the district court did	8
not err in its interpretation of the Supreme Court Order.	9
CONCLUSION	10
{8} 	For the reasons stated above, we affirm.	11
{9} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	12
_____________________________	13
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge	14
WE CONCUR:	15
_____________________________	16
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge	17
_____________________________	18
GERALD E. BACA, Judge	19