State v. Salgado, 817 P.2d 730 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Salgado, 817 P.2d 730 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Amendments to a docketing statement are unnecessary for cases assigned to the general calendar because the record on appeal supersedes the statement for factual presentation.

Defendant moved to amend his docketing statement to include additional facts discovered in the transcript after the case was assigned to the general calendar. The court considers whether such an amendment is necessary for cases assigned to the general calendar following a rule change. Under the amended rules, the docketing statement no longer limits the issues that may be raised in a brief for cases on a non-summary calendar. Because the record on appeal supersedes the docketing statement for factual presentation on the general calendar, the court denies the motion as unnecessary.

547 citation events (535 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Gallegos v. Owen, No. 32,751 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2013)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 731 Viability of issues presented in appellate briefs8 citing cases[T]he docketing statement no longer governs the issues that may be 19 raised on a non-summary calendar.1 citing court put it this way
By viable, we meant to describe an argument that was 18 colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any merit.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • Gallegos v. Owen, No. 32,751 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2013).unpublished 3 cites
    (By viable, we meant to describe an argument that was 18 colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any merit.)
  • City of Farmington v. Michael Redhorse, No. 32,712 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2013).unpublished 3 cites
    (By viable, we meant to describe an argument 11 that was colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any 12 merit.)
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“by viable, we meant to describe an argument that was 18 colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any merit.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Gallegos v. Owen, No. 32,751 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2013).unpublished 3 cites
    “by viable, we meant to describe an argument that was 18 colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any merit.”
  • City of Farmington v. Michael Redhorse, No. 32,712 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2013).unpublished 3 cites
    “by viable, we meant to describe an argument 11 that was colorable, or arguable, and to distinguish arguments that are devoid of any 12 merit.”
Other citing cases45 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 35 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Eutimio Jesse SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant
12598.
New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Apr 23, 1991.
Published opinion
817 P.2d 730
Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe and Charlie Brown, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee., Robert J. Jacobs, Taos, for defendant-appellant.
Hartz, Donnelly, Apodaca.
Cited by 296 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #40,569 of 633,719
Citer courts: New Mexico Court of Appeals (2)

OPINION

HARTZ, Judge.

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) (even before the rule change, supreme court would not automatically deny review to issues raised for the first time in the brief-in-chief). 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 docketing statement that are not supported by the record on appeal. See State v. Calanche, 91 N.M. 390, 574 P.2d 1018 (Ct.App.1978).

In short, for appeals filed after July 1, 1990, there is no need to file motions to amend the docketing statement once the case is assigned to the general calendar.

Of course, issues not raised in the trial court are still subject to SCRA 1986, 12-216, requiring preservation. Also, when the absence of the issue in the docketing statement results in the omission of pertinent matters from the record on appeal, prejudice to the appellee may cause this court to refuse to review an issue appearing for the first time in the brief-in-chief. See Gallegos.

Accordingly, we deny defendant’s motion as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONNELLY and APODACA, JJ„ concur.