N.M. Stat. § 35-13-2 (2026)

judgment.
   A. Appeals from the magistrate courts shall be tried de novo in the district court.

   B. The district court docket fee in any criminal appeal is thirty-five dollars ($35.00),
ten dollars ($10.00) of which shall be deposited in the court automation fund.

   C. If the judgment of the magistrate court in a criminal action is affirmed or rendered
against the appellant on appeal or if the appellant fails to appear at the time fixed for
hearing in the district court, the district court shall enter judgment imposing the same, a
greater or a lesser penalty as that imposed in the magistrate court in the action.

History: 1953 Comp., § 36-15-3, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 242, § 10; 1981, ch. 271, §
1; 1987, ch. 123, § 2; 1996, ch. 41, § 6.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 171, repealed former 36-15-3,
1953 Comp., relating to forfeiture of appearance bonds, summons, service and appeal,
and Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 150, enacted a new 36-15-3, 1953 Comp., relating to appeals
from magistrate to district courts. Laws 1975, ch. 242, § 10, repealed 36-15-3, 1953
Comp., relating to appeals from magistrate to district courts, and enacted a new section.

Cross references. — For the court automation fund, see 34-9-10 NMSA 1978.

For trial de novo on appeal to district court, see 39-3-1 NMSA 1978.

For appeal from magistrate to district court, see Rule 2-705 NMRA.

The 1996 amendment, effective May 15, 1996, substituted "thirty-five dollars ($35.00),
ten dollars ($10.00) of which shall be deposited in the court automation fund" for
"twenty-five dollars ($25.00)" at the end of Subsection B.

The 1987 amendment, effective June 19, 1987, substituted "twenty-five dollars
($25.00)" for "two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50)" in Subsection B.

Some of the annotations listed below were decided under former law.

District court required to impose sentence. — When a defendant is convicted in a
trial de novo on appeal from magistrate court, the district court is required to impose a
sentence prior to remanding the case to the magistrate court for enforcement of the
district court's judgment. State v. Montoya, 2005-NMCA-005, 136 N.M. 674, 104 P.3d
540, cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-011, 138 N.M. 587, 124 P.3d 565.

Order of remand not final. — When the district court enters an order of remand to the
magistrate court that does not resolve the issue of sentencing, the order is not final and
appealable. State v. Montoya, 2005-NMCA-005, 136 N.M. 674, 104 P.3d 540, cert.
quashed, 2005-NMCERT-011, 138 N.M. 587, 124 P.3d 565.

Jurisdiction of district court. — On appeals from a magistrate court, the district court
becomes a court of limited jurisdiction for the purpose of the appeal and the trial de
novo. State v. Lynch, 1971-NMCA-049, 82 N.M. 532, 484 P.2d 374.

Discussion of right to jury trial for petty offenses. — A defendant is entitled to a jury
trial for multiple petty offenses arising out of the same act, transaction or occurrence
only if he is actually threatened at the commencement of trial with an aggregate
potential penalty of greater than six months imprisonment. Haar v. Hanrahan, 708 F.2d
1547 (10th Cir. 1983).

Case dismissed when no jurisdiction. — Where case was begun in justice court (now
magistrate court) and appealed to district court, if justice (now magistrate) had no
jurisdiction, there was nothing to try de novo, and the case, on proper motion, would be
dismissed. Geren v. Lawson, 1919-NMSC-048, 25 N.M. 415, 184 P. 216.

If the magistrate court lacks jurisdiction, the district court suffers the same lack of
jurisdiction. State v. Lynch, 1971-NMCA-049, 82 N.M. 532, 484 P.2d 374.
Dismissal since complaint defective. — The district court could not assume a more
enlarged jurisdiction on appeal than was conferred on the justice (now magistrate).
Where there was nothing in complaint for assault and battery to show in what county the
offense took place, the cause would be dismissed. Territory v. Valencia, 1881-NMSC-
008, 2 N.M. 108.

Trial to be de novo. — Where appellant interposed a plea to the jurisdiction of a justice
of the peace (now magistrate), which was overruled, and he declined to plead further,
and judgment was rendered against him, and on appeal to the district court appellant
conceded the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace (now magistrate), but appellee's
motion for affirmance for that reason was overruled, the latter ruling was proper
because under the statute the case was triable de novo in the district court, upon the
merits. Rogers v. Kemp Lumber Co., 1913-NMSC-079, 18 N.M. 300, 137 P. 586.

The district court could not conduct appellate review absent a written order or
other clear indication in the record of the magistrate court's ruling. — In a DWI
case, where charges were filed in magistrate court after police arrested defendant for
driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and where the magistrate court
reportedly excluded all of the state's witnesses due to the state's late disclosure, and
where the state filed a nolle prosequi and refiled the charges in district court to appeal
the exclusion of witnesses under State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, and where
defendant moved to dismiss the criminal information, arguing that the state had failed to
comply with the six-month rule in magistrate court, and that the district court could not
hear the refiled case because the magistrate court had not filed a suppression order
before the state filed its nolle prosequi, the district court erred when it dismissed the
case for a violation of the magistrate court six-month ruling in light of the New Mexico
supreme court's withdrawal of the six-month rule in district court, and the district court
could not exercise appellate review of the magistrate court's reported exclusion of
witnesses absent proof of an order from the magistrate court or other documentation in
the magistrate court record of the exclusion ruling. State v. Hobbs, 2024-NMCA-037,
cert. granted.

In an appeal from the magistrate court, the district court's review is not for legal
error. — Where defendant was charged in magistrate court with one misdemeanor
traffic violation and three petty misdemeanor violations, and where, two days before
trial, defendant requested copies of jury questionnaires from the magistrate court clerk,
who informed defendant that the magistrate court required a copying fee for copies of
the jury questionnaires, and where, the day before trial, defendant filed a verified
application for free process for indigency, along with a motion to continue his trial, and
where, the next morning, with the jury panel already in the courtroom for jury selection,
the magistrate court orally denied defendant's motion to continue, and where, following
a jury trial, defendant was convicted on all four counts, and where defendant appealed
to the district court and filed a pretrial motion requesting appellate review of the
magistrate court clerk's refusal to provide him free copies of the jury questionnaires and
of the magistrate court's denial of his motion to continue, and where the district court
denied defendant's pretrial motion and held a de novo jury trial, after which, defendant
was again convicted on all four counts, and where, on appeal, defendant claimed that
the district court should have remanded his case to the magistrate court for a new trial,
the district court did not err in providing defendant with a trial de novo, because the
district court's review in an appeal from the magistrate court is not for legal error.
Defendant's claims of error can only be remedied by a trial de novo in the district court,
and no rule permits the district court to remand or otherwise transfer jurisdiction back to
the magistrate court for a new trial. State v. Lucero, 2022-NMCA-020, cert. denied.

Effect where material allegations admitted. — Defendant actually had a trial de novo
on appeal even though evidence was not introduced where the material allegations of
complaint had been admitted. Butler Paper Co. v. Sydney, 1943-NMSC-047, 47 N.M.
463, 144 P.2d 170.

Effect on judgment below. — On appeal to district court, case was tried on its merits
de novo; if plaintiff's statement in a cause of action was found defective in substance,
contrary judgment below would be reversed. Crolot v. Maloy, 1882-NMSC-004, 2 N.M.
198.

Trial de novo mandatory. — Trial de novo on appeal from justice court (now
magistrate court) was mandatory. Butler Paper Co. v. Sydney, 1943-NMSC-047, 47
N.M. 463, 144 P.2d 170.

Procedure on appeal. — If justice court (now magistrate court) had jurisdiction in first
instance, then district court would proceed to try case de novo according to district court
procedure, and would not follow that of the justice court (magistrate court). Pointer v.
Lewis, 1919-NMSC-020, 25 N.M. 260, 181 P. 428.

Grant of summary judgment not error. — Where there was nothing to show the trial
court failed to consider the matters he was required to consider by Rule 56(c) [now Rule
1-056C NMRA], N.M.R. Civ. P., grant of summary judgment regardless of magistrate's
findings was not error. Southern Union Gas Co. v. Taylor, 1971-NMSC-067, 82 N.M.
670, 486 P.2d 606).

Accounts or setoffs filed. — Parties can file accounts or setoffs, as if the case had
originated in the district court. Archibeque v. Miera, 1857-NMSC-003, 1 N.M. 160.

Malicious prosecution. — Where prosecuting witness appealed from judgment of
justice (now magistrate) taxing him with costs, district court was required to try the
question whether the prosecution was instituted maliciously, or without probable cause,
under Laws 1907, ch. 61, § 3 (41-13-5, 1953 Comp., now repealed), de novo, and enter
its own independent judgment. State v. Coats, 1913-NMSC-082, 18 N.M. 314, 137 P.
597.

Right to jury trial. — District courts were not bound by rules applicable in justice court
(now magistrate court) and on a trial de novo no jury trial was necessary unless some
other considerations required it. Reece v. Montano, 1943-NMSC-054, 48 N.M. 1, 144
P.2d 461.

After jury trial in magistrate court, defendant not entitled to jury in trial de novo in
district court. State v. Haar, 1980-NMCA-065, 94 N.M. 539, 612 P.2d 1350, cert. denied,
94 N.M. 674, 615 P.2d 991, and 449 U.S. 1063, 101 S. Ct. 787, 66 L. Ed. 2d 606
(1980).

District judge may not enhance sentence received in magistrate court. State v. Haar,
1980-NMCA-065, 94 N.M. 539, 612 P.2d 1350, cert. denied, 94 N.M. 674, 615 P.2d
991, and 449 U.S. 1063, 101 S. Ct. 787, 66 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1980).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Justices of the Peace §
84.

51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace §§ 185 to 212, 272.