{
  "id": 1592871,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILFORD T., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilford T.",
  "decision_date": "1989-08-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 11312",
  "first_page": "781",
  "last_page": "783",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "108 N.M. 781"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "779 P.2d 559"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "98 N.M. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1582581
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/98/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 756",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2865786
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0756-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.M. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1557050
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/92/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.M. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1573150
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/94/0521-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N.M. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1586445
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/101/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.M. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1568753
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/93/0481-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 349,
    "char_count": 5650,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.794,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05967857585519465
    },
    "sha256": "82b1afdeb956a67f4038a3a4f7b2df0f5c6a43aa5bf2eb473e68f2750ccfccca",
    "simhash": "1:b0443a565870b69a",
    "word_count": 911
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:06:26.206257+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BIVINS, C.J., and CHAVEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILFORD T., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nAPODACA, Judge.\nThe child appeals the order of the children\u2019s court transferring this matter to district court. Having granted the child\u2019s motion for rehearing, we withdrew our memorandum opinion of April 6, 1989, which had affirmed the children\u2019s court. Our third calendar notice proposed summary affirmance, to which the child filed a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded by the child\u2019s memorandum, we affirm the children\u2019s court. Prior to the issuance of our previous opinion, the child moved to delete his name from the record. We grant the child\u2019s motion. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32-1-39(A) (Repl.1986); State v. Doe, 93 N.M. 481, 601 P.2d 451 (Ct.App.1979) (Doe I).\nWe granted the child\u2019s motion for rehearing to consider a jurisdictional question. The child alleged that his parents were not given notice of the transfer hearing and that they did not attend the hearing. Based on these representations, our second calendar notice proposed to summarily reverse the transfer order. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32-1-30(A)(3) (Repl.1986); State v. Doe, 101 N.M. 214, 680 P.2d 354 (Ct.App.1984) (Doe II). Further inquiry revealed that the child\u2019s grandmother, his custodian, attended the hearing and testified on the child\u2019s behalf. We thus proposed summary affirmance in our third calendar notice. We also proposed to overrule the specific holding in Doe II that invalidated transfer orders not containing a specific finding that notice was given to the child\u2019s parents, guardian, or custodian.\nA matter involving a child may not be transferred to district court unless his parents, guardian, or custodian have been notified in writing at least five days before the hearing. \u00a7 32-l-30(A)(3). We have previously held that a transfer order entered without a specific finding regarding notice is invalid because it is not entered in compliance with the statute. See Doe II. Notification serves the purpose of effectuating the stated purposes of the legislature in drafting the Children\u2019s Code. Id.\nWe find that the purposes of the Children\u2019s Code were served by the custodian\u2019s appearance at the transfer hearing, even though she was not formally notified in writing at least five days before the hearing. See State v. Sanchez, 94 N.M. 521, 612 P.2d 1332 (Ct.App.1980) (nonobservance of criminal statute\u2019s procedural methods does not require reversal when waiver exists). Inasmuch as the custodian appeared and participated at the hearing, we see no prejudice to the child because of the lack of written notice. See State v. Doe, 92 N.M. 198, 585 P.2d 342 (Ct.App.1978).\nWe also overrule Doe II insofar as it invalidated transfer orders not containing a specific finding that notice was given to the child\u2019s parents, guardian, or custodian. Under the plain language of Section 32-l-30(A), the children\u2019s court must make a specific finding only on the question of reasonable grounds to believe that the child committed the delinquent act. See \u00a7 32-l-30(A)(5); see also Doe I. We believe Doe II was incorrect in invalidating transfer orders not containing an express finding on notice. We have determined that such an interpretation necessarily leads to illogical results. For example, we do not believe the legislature intended that the children\u2019s court be required to specifically find that the transfer hearing was \u201cheld in conformity with the rules on a hearing on a petition alleging a delinquent act.\u201d See \u00a7 32-l-30(A)(2). This subsection is simply meant to regulate the procedure at transfer hearings; it does not mandate inclusion of an express finding in the transfer order that the subsection\u2019s requirements were met.\nThe child contends the requirement in Doe II that the children\u2019s court make a specific finding concerning notice serves the interests of judicial economy. Specifically, the child addresses the potential difficulty, absent the requirement of a specific finding in the order, that an appellate court might have in determining whether proper notice of the transfer hearing was given. We agree that inclusion of a specific finding concerning notice in the transfer order is the preferable practice. Nevertheless, statutes are to be given effect as written and, where free from ambiguity, there is no room for construction. State v. Elliott, 89 N.M. 756, 557 P.2d 1105 (1977). There is no requirement in Section 32-1-30(A)(3) that the children\u2019s court make a specific finding concerning notice, notwithstanding the holding in Doe II that may have so implied.\nThe child continues to contest affirmance of his remaining issues, but we determine that he has failed to specifically point out any errors that would persuade us our proposed disposition is incorrect. We thus affirm on these issues for the reasons stated in our prior calendar notices. See State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 647 P.2d 403 (1982).\nFor these reasons and those contained in the calendar notices, the order transferring this matter to the district court is affirmed. The clerk of this court is directed to delete the name of the child from all documents filed in this court that are not a part of the children\u2019s court record. The children\u2019s court shall likewise delete the child\u2019s name from the children\u2019s court record.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nBIVINS, C.J., and CHAVEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "APODACA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hal Stratton, Atty. Gen., Bill Primm, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Jacquelyn Robins, Chief Public Defender, Jonathan A. Abbott, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "779 P.2d 559\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILFORD T., Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 11312.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 3, 1989.\nCertiorari Denied Aug. 6, 1989.\nHal Stratton, Atty. Gen., Bill Primm, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.\nJacquelyn Robins, Chief Public Defender, Jonathan A. Abbott, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0781-01",
  "first_page_order": 819,
  "last_page_order": 821
}