State v. Reyes ( 2014 )

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
Appeals and does not include the filing date.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. 33,479
5 PAUL KEITH REYES,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Stan Whitaker, District Judge
9 Gary K. King, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Paul Keith Reyes
13 Albuquerque, NM
14 Pro Se Appellant
15 MEMORANDUM OPINION
16 HANISEE, Judge.
17 {1} Defendant, who is self-represented, is appealing from a district court order
18 dismissing his on-the-record appeal from metropolitan court for lack of a final order.
1 We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm the district court. Defendant has
2 responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm.
3 {2} The district court order dismissing Defendant’s on-the-record appeal from
4 metropolitan court indicates that the metropolitan court proceedings ended with the
5 filing of a nolle prosequi and that no judgment or final order was entered below. [RP
6 15] There is no final metropolitan court in the record proper, or in records available
7 online. Generally, appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals that are timely filed from
8 final decisions, orders, or judgments. See State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 19,
9 144 N.M. 297, 187 P.3d 162. This requirement applies to appeals taken from the
10 metropolitan court to the district court. See Rule 5-827(A) NMRA. Accordingly, we
11 affirm the district court’s order dismissing Defendant’s appeal.
12 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
15 WE CONCUR:
16
17 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
18
19 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
2