N.M. R. App. P. 12-502
Committee commentary. - The committee made several changes to this rule in 2017, as follows: (1) a new Subparagraph (C)(2)(f), requiring the petitioner to alert the Supreme Court to any related or prior appeals consistent with a similar obligation contained in Rules 12-202 and 12-208 NMRA, which is an obligation that continues through the pendency of the case; (2) a new Paragraph F, clarifying how parties should be denominated when opposing parties file separate petitions for certiorari; (3) a new Paragraph I, addressing replies; (4) amendments to Paragraphs K and L to provide more detailed information about briefing and oral argument in a case where the petition for writ of certiorari has been granted from one of the various Court of Appeals dockets; and (5) a new Paragraph M, regarding the Supreme Court's expedited process for briefing and oral argument in time-sensitive cases.
The 2007 amendments to this rule allow practitioners to exceed the traditional page limitations for a petition, conditional cross-petition, or response if the pleading complies with the type-volume limitations set forth in Subparagraph (D)(3) and is accompanied by a statement as provided by Paragraph E to show that the pleading complies with the applicable type-volume limitation. And, in the exercise of the Supreme Court's rule-making power, the time limit in Paragraph B for the filing of a petition was expanded from the twenty (20)-day limit contained in NMSA 1978, Section 34-5-14(B) to thirty (30) days.
See Cummings v. State, 2007-NMSC-048, ¶ 17, 142 N.M. 656, 168 P.3d 1080; see also State v. Arnold, 1947-NMSC-043, ¶ 11, 51 N.M. 311, 183 P.2d 845. ("Once the legislature has authorized the appeal, reasonable regulations affecting the time and manner of taking and perfecting the same are procedural and within this court's rule making power.").
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 09-8300-031, effective August 24, 2009, for all pending cases in the district courts and the Court of Appeals; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2017.]
.ANNOTATIONS The 2017 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-015, effective December 31, 2017, required the petitioner to alert the Supreme Court to any related or prior appeals, clarified how parties should be denominated when opposing parties file separate petitions for certiorari, prohibited the filing of a reply to a petition for writ of certiorari without leave of the Supreme Court and provided the process for seeking leave to file a reply, clarified provisions regarding briefing and oral arguments, provided an expedited decision process for time-sensitive cases, and revised the committee commentary; in the heading, added "from the Supreme Court"; in Paragraph A, deleted "and of actions of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 12-205 NMRA of these rules"; in Paragraph B, changed "23-113" to "23-114", after "(3) day", deleted "mailing", and after "Rule 12-308", added "(B)"; in Paragraph C, added a new Subparagraph C(2)(f) and redesignated former Subparagraph C(2)(f) as Subparagraph C(2)(g), in Subparagraph C(3), deleted "The petition shall have attached a", added new subparagraph designations "(a)" through "(c)", in Subparagraph C(3)(a), added "A petitioner shall attach to the petition a", after "the Court of Appeals and, if", added "the Court of Appeals", after "decided", added "the case", and deleted "and, if decided by", in Subparagraph C(3)(b), added "A petitioner seeking review of an action of", after "Court of Appeals", deleted "pursuant to" and added "involving review of an administrative proceeding under", added "shall attach to the petition", and after "decision leading", and added "to its final order or judgment", and in Subparagraph C(3)(c), after "attached", added "to the petition"; in Paragraph D, in the introductory sentence, after "permission of the", added "Supreme"; added a new Paragraph F and redesignated former Paragraphs F and G as Paragraphs G and H, respectively; in Paragraph G, changed "23-113" to "23-114"; in Paragraph H, deleted "No other response may be submitted."; added a new Paragraph I and redesignated former Paragraphs H through J as Paragraphs J through L, respectively; in Paragraph J, in the paragraph heading, added "and action by the", in the first sentence, added "The Supreme Court clerk shall deliver a", and deleted "for a writ of certiorari shall be delivered by the Supreme Court clerk", and in the second sentence, added "At the Supreme Court's request, the Court of Appeals clerk", after "deliver the record", deleted "of the cause" and added "proper and any designated transcripts and exhibits", and after "to the Supreme Court", deleted "on request, and recall any previously issued mandate"; in Paragraph K, after the first sentence, added the remainder of the paragraph, and added Subparagraphs K(1) through K(3); in Paragraph L, deleted "Oral argument shall not be allowed unless directed by the Supreme Court" and added the new language; and added a new Paragraph M and redesignated former Paragraphs K and L as Paragraphs N and O, respectively. The 2009 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 09-8300-031, effective August 24, 2009 for all pending cases in the district courts and the Court of Appeals, in Paragraph B, in the first sentence, changed the time from twenty (20) days to thirty (30) days; and in the second sentence, added "Subject to the provisions of Rule 12-304 NMRA and 23-113 NMRA" and deleted "or a free process order"; in Subparagraph (3) of Paragraph C, after "a copy of any calendaring notices", added the remainder of the sentence; and in Paragraph F added the second sentence. The 2003 amendment, effective November 1, 2003, deleted "of New Mexico" preceding "with" in Subparagraph (4)(a) of Paragraph C, inserted present Paragraph D, redesignated former Paragraph D as present Paragraph E and substituted "fifteen (15)" for "ten (10)" twice in the first sentence of that paragraph, and deleted former Paragraph E. The 1999 amendment, effective for cases filed on and after January 1, 2000, near the end of Paragraph A, inserted "and of actions of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 12-505 of these rules"; in the first sentence of Paragraph C, substituted "if" for "in cases", inserted "a copy of" following "summary calendar", and added the second sentence; in Paragraph F, deleted "forthwith" following "who shall", substituted "on request" for "clerk", and substituted "previously issued mandate" for "any mandate theretofore issued". The 1995 amendment, effective October 1, 1995, added the second sentence in Paragraph C. The 1992 amendment, effective for cases filed in the supreme court and court of appeals on or after August 1, 1992, deleted "and memoranda in opposition" from the end of Paragraph C.
For certiorari review of administrative agency decisions, see Rule 12-505 NMRA. For appeal of final decisions by agencies to district court, see Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978. For the definition and related discussion of proportionally-spaced type style or typeface, see Paragraph (C)(1) of Rule 12-305 NMRA and committee commentary. For the definition and related discussion of monospaced type style or typeface, see Paragraph (C)(2) of Rule 12-305 NMRA and committee commentary. I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION. Applicability of federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its compliance mandates on local governments is an issue of significant importance to justify the Supreme Court's review. Paule v. Santa Fe Cnty., 2005-NMSC-021, 138 N.M. 82, 117 P.3d 240. Significant question of constitutional law. - Where defendant alleged in his petition for a writ of certiorari that the state violated his rights as provided under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, the state supreme court had jurisdiction to review defendant's case by writ of certiorari because it involves a significant question of law under the constitution of New Mexico or the United States. State v. Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061. Requirements for writ. - Certiorari generally is proper in two classes of cases: (1) whenever it is shown that the inferior court or tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction; (2) whenever it is shown that the inferior court or tribunal has proceeded illegally, and no appeal is allowed or other mode provided for reviewing its proceedings. Albuquerque Nat'l Bank v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 1967 -NMSC-068, 77 N.M. 603, 426 P.2d 204. Establishing propriety of writ. - Neither this rule nor 34-5-14 NMSA 1978 would require a defendant to establish the propriety of the writ of certiorari in his brief in chief. State v. Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061. Court may only consider questions set forth in petition for certiorari. - In an appeal from a reversal of a summary judgment for the defendant in a defamation action, the supreme court could not review other allegedly defamatory statements by the defendant not set forth in the petition for certiorari in the absence of a cross-appeal or petition raising these issues. Fikes v. Furst, 2003-NMSC-033, 134 N.M. 602, 81 P.3d 545. Remedy of certiorari was proper where district court had exceeded its jurisdiction by order forbidding disbursements from trust under writ of attachment which had been dissolved, even though beneficiary of trust was real party in interest and was not before the court. Albuquerque Nat'l Bank v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 1967 -NMSC-068, 77 N.M. 603, 426 P.2d 204. Need for legal precedent. - Where majority of the sitting panel of court of appeals affirmed district court, but were unable to agree upon any single basis for that action, and no precedent was created on important legal issues involved, supreme court would grant certiorari. Jim v. CIT Fin. Servs. Corp., 1975 -NMSC-019, 87 N.M. 362, 533 P.2d 751. II. TIME. Late filing fatal to petition. - When petition for writ of certiorari directed to court of appeals is filed later than the 20-day filing requirement, and absent some unusual circumstance justifying such late filing, it must be denied. Serna v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1975-NMSC-049, 88 N.M. 282, 540 P.2d 212; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Rota-Cone Field Operating Co., 1973-NMSC-107, 85 N.M. 636, 515 P.2d 640. Late filing for certiorari not considered. - A petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed within 20 days after final action by the court of appeals, and where the defendant's application is late, he is not entitled to consideration. State v. Weddle, 1966-NMCA-001, 79 N.M. 252, 442 P.2d 210, aff'd, 1967-NMSC-027, 77 N.M. 417, 423 P.2d 609. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 14 Am. Jur. 2d Certiorari § 1 et seq. Existence of jurisdictional facts found by inferior tribunal as subject of inquiry on certiorari, 5 A.L.R.2d 675. Exclusion or inclusion of terminal Sunday or holiday in computing time for taking or perfecting appellate review, 61 A.L.R.2d 482. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 550 et seq.