January 22, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Jessica Brooke Lacy, No. A-1-CA-37597

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37597
5 JESSICA BROOKE LACY,
6 	Defendant-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY
8 James Waylon Counts, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General
12 Albuquerque, NM
13 	for Appellant
14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
15 	Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
16 	Santa Fe, NM
17 for Appellee
18 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
19 VANZI, Chief Judge.
20 	{l} 	The State has appealed from the dismissal ofits petition to revoke Defendant's
21 	probation. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 1/22/2019 9:44 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 we proposed to dismiss the appeal. The State has filed a memorandum in opposition.
2 After due consideration, we dismiss.
3 	{2} 	The pertinent background information has previously been set forth. We will
4 avoid undue reiteration here, focusing instead on the substantive content of the
5 memorandum in opposition.
6 	{3} 	. The State contends that it should be said to have complied with Rule 5-805
7 NMRA, on the theory that it's reliance upon the probation office's report constituted
8 permissible 	and 	routine 	adoption 	or 	incorporation 	by 	reference. 	[MIO 	3-5]
9 Alternatively, the State argues that it's failure to set forth each of the alleged
10 violations in its petition should be regarded as immaterial, in light of its reference to
11 	the probation office's report. [MIO 2-6] We remain unpersuaded.
12 {4} 	As we previously observed, Rule 5-805 imposes separate requirements upon
13 	the probation authority and the district attorney. Subsection (E) specifies that if the ·
14 probation authority recommends revocation, a written report must be filed with the
15 	court describing the essential facts of each violation. Subsection (F) specifies that if
16 the district attorney elects to seek revocation, he or she must file a motion to revoke
17 "setting forth each of the alleged violations" upon which its motion is based. These
18 	are distinct requirements, entailing separate discretionary determinations by the
2

1 probation authority and the district attorney. To the extent that the State invites us to
2 conflate these provisions, [MIO 5-6] we decline to do so. See Pincheira v. Allstate
3 Ins. Co., 2007-NMCA-094,, 45, 142 N.M. 283, 164 P.3d 982 (indicating that this
4 Court rejects interpretations of rules that render parts of them meaningless or mere
5 surplusage), aff'd on other grounds, 2008-NMSC-049, 144 N.M. 601, 190 P.3d 322.
6 	{5} 	Moreover, we remain of the opinion that compliance with Rule 5-805(F) is
7 meaningful, in that it requires the State to communicate with clarity and specificity
8 on what grounds it seeks revocation. See State v. Baldonado, 1998-NMCA-040,, 21,
9 124 N .M. 745, 95 5 P .2d 214 ("[D Jue process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
10 United 	States 	Constitution and 	[Article 	II, 	Section 	14] 	of the 	New Mexico
11 	Constitution require the [s]tate to provide reasonable notice of charges against a
12 person and a fair opportunity to defend; rights which may not be ignored or
13 	trivialized." (internal quotation marks and. citation omitted)). Although the State
14 contends that the district court's stated concerns about notice in this case were
15 	baseless, [MIO 6- 7] we disagree. The State's failure to comply with Subsection (F)
16 was problematic, given that ·the report filed by the probation authority was replete
17 with abbreviations and unclear about the impact that Defendant's ingestion of cold
18 	medication might have had upon the lab report. [RP 14 7] Under the circumstances,
3

1 the 	district 	court's ·concerns 	were 	not 	unfounded. 	See, 	e.g., 	State 	v. 	Raley,
2 	1974-NMCA-024, 1124-25, 31, 86 N.M. 190,521 P.2d 1031 (Hendley, J., specially
3 concurring) (observing that "[ o]ne essential function of a criminal complaint is to
4 give notice of the crime with which the individual is charged[,]" indicating that due
5 process 	of law requires 	a specific description 	of the 	offense, 	and ultimately
6 disapproving of the use ofinitials instead of words in criminal complaints to identify
7 the offense in light of the fact that this can lead to "absurdity, uncertainty, vagueness,
8 unidentifiability and mistake"). We therefore conclude that the district court's
9 election to dismiss the petition was well within its authority and discretion. See id.
10 	(illustrating that dismissal is appropriate where a charging document supplies
11 	inadequate notice); see also State ex rel. NM State Highway & Transp. Dep 't v.
. 	.
12 Baca, 1995-NMSC-033, 1111-12, 120 N.M. 1, 896 P.2d 1148 (explaining that the
13 	sanction provisions in the procedural rules do not displace the court's inherent power
14 to impose sanctions "to regulate their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter
15 	frivolous 	filings" 	(internal 	quotation 	marks 	and 	citation 	omitted)); 	State 	v.
16 	Candelaria, 2008-NMCA-120, 1112, 22, 144 N.M. 797, 192 P.3d 792 (recognizing
17 the inherent authority of the courts to dismiss a criminal prosecution as a sanction
18 	against the g~yernment).
4

1 {6} 	Accordingly, for the reasons described in the notice of proposed summary
2 disposition and above, we reject the State's assertion that the district court's
3 disposition is contrary to law. We therefore dismiss the instant appeal. See State v.
4 Montoya, 2011-NMCA-009, 115, 26, 149 N.M. 242,247 P.3d 1127 (explaining that
5 the state is entitled to pursue appeals from the dismissal of probation revocation
6 matters only to the extent that the district court's disposition is contrary to law).
7 {7} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9 	• VANZI, Chief Judge
10 WE CONCUR:
. . ~r----
5