 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Maynes2/13/2001
1999-NMSC-024, 17-18. It is the "general rule that a case is not pending before it is on the docket of some court or after a final judgment is filed." Id. 18. That the SCC cases were deemed not to be "pending" at the time the new PRC legislation was enacted due to the previous entry of SCC final orders distinguishes U.S. West from the case before us now. Id. 17.
In Hyden, new legislation changed the procedure for appellate review of administrative decisions. Hyden, 2000-NMCA-002, 2. This Court held Section 34 inapplicable because the district court had issued final orders but an appeal was not yet docketed in the Court of Appeals until after the effective date of the legislation. Id. 13. That is, since the legislation affected only appellate procedure and the matters at issue were not yet appealed, the cases were not pending pursuant to Section 34 when appellate review was sought. Id. Therefore, Hyden is also not on point. Here, the new legislation affected not only appellate procedure. It also changed a trial procedure in contemplation of that new appellate procedure. Thus, as recognized by the Supreme Court order implementing the new procedures, Section 34 applied to the whole range of changes made, from trial to appeal.
Because we remand this case to the district court for trial de novo, we need not address whether a retrial in the metropolitan court would violate Defendant's constitutional protections against double jeopardy.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the order of the district court dismissing the criminal complaint. On remand, Defendant's appeal to the district court should proceed de novo.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
WE CONCUR:
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Chief Judge
LYNN PICKARD, Judge
|