{
  "id": 834150,
  "name": "Tena MASTERMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. STATE of New Mexico TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Masterman v. State Taxation & Revenue Department",
  "decision_date": "1998-08-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 18376",
  "first_page": "705",
  "last_page": "708",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.M. 705"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "964 P.2d 869"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "1998-NMCA-126"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 N.M. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        731635
      ],
      "weight": 7,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "393"
        },
        {
          "page": "137"
        },
        {
          "page": "392"
        },
        {
          "page": "136",
          "parenthetical": "noting lack of express statutory authority for the right to appeal from a mandatory driver's license revocation"
        },
        {
          "page": "392-93"
        },
        {
          "page": "136-37",
          "parenthetical": "stating that district court may review mandatory driver's license revocation by a petition for writ of certiorari"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/114/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.M. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1552802
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278"
        },
        {
          "page": "374"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/117/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N.M. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1592843
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "282"
        },
        {
          "page": "990"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/108/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1998-NMSC-016",
      "category": "reporters:neutral",
      "reporter": "NMSC",
      "case_ids": [
        834335
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "\u00b68"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/125/0308-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 461,
    "char_count": 8932,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.693,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1630650869605511e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5845263565559228
    },
    "sha256": "8e8d38b04ab68f6ba90037ec685b5fc8f5b06b1deddf171e0dfff69f05cd9d4f",
    "simhash": "1:9e42fda6d0ba7b75",
    "word_count": 1411
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:04.972911+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "FLORES and ARMIJO, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Tena MASTERMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. STATE of New Mexico TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nAPODACA, Judge.\n{1} Respondent Taxation and Revenue Department, Motor Vehicle Division (the Division) appeals the district court\u2019s order reinstating the driving privileges of Petitioner Tena Masterman (Driver). Driver filed a \u201cPetition For Judicial Review\u201d in the district court seeking an order directing the Division to correct its records to reflect a DWI dismissal under an Amended Judgment and Sentence entered by the magistrate court in Valencia County. The Division raises three issues on appeal: (1) the district court was without jurisdiction to act or rule on Driver\u2019s untimely petition; (2) the magistrate court had no authority to amend its original judgment finding Driver guilty and imposing sentence to a later judgment finding Driver not guilty; and (3) even if the magistrate court had that authority, the amended judgment had no effect on the Division\u2019s records of Driver\u2019s DWI conviction for license revocation purposes. We reverse sua sponte because of Driver\u2019s failure to properly invoke the district court\u2019s jurisdiction. We therefore need not reach the issues raised by the Division.\nI. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\n{2} Driver received a third DWI citation in February 1996, which is the focus of this appeal. On February 19, 1996, Driver pled no contest in the magistrate court of Valencia County. The court found her guilty and sentenced her to ninety days in jail, with eighty-seven days suspended.\n{3} According to Driver\u2019s brief, the magistrate court treated the DWI citation issued in 1996 as a first offense. Driver contends that the court stated the proceedings subjected Driver to only a one-year suspension of her driving privileges. Driver also asserts that the magistrate court declared it would dismiss the charges if Driver complied with the order to attend DWI school. As required by law, the magistrate court sent the Division an abstract of the third conviction. The Division sent Driver notice in March 1996 of revocation of her driver\u2019s license for a minimum of ten years, pursuant to NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-5-5(D) (1993).\n{4} Driver argues that she complied with the magistrate court\u2019s first order or judgment and that was the basis for the later entry of the amended judgment and sentence dismissing the DWI charge filed originally in the February 1996 proceeding. The amended judgment and sentence provided that Driver was not guilty of \u201cDWI 1st offense\u201d and stated that Defendant had complied with the court\u2019s order for alcohol screening, community service, and costs. The magistrate court\u2019s order of dismissal expressly provided for reinstatement of Driver\u2019s driving privileges.\n{5} Driver\u2019s counsel alleges that he then informed the Division of the entry of the magistrate court\u2019s amended judgment. After several contacts between counsel and the Division, the Division purportedly instructed counsel to submit the amended judgment and sentence to the Division. The Division took no action on the amended judgment. Instead, the Division allegedly informed Driver\u2019s counsel that the Division would require an order from the district court, not the magistrate court, before reinstating Driver\u2019s driving privileges.\n{6} As a result, Driver filed her Petition for Judicial Review in the district court of Valencia County in March 1997. In response, the Division filed its \u201cAnswer to Notice of Appeal\u201d that same month. The answer challenged the district court\u2019s jurisdiction to consider the petition, asserting the petition was untimely. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-5-36 (1978) (providing that, except where revocation is mandatory, a person has thirty days following license revocation to petition the district court for review of revocation).\n{7} According to the Division\u2019s brief in chief, the Division argued to the district court that the magistrate court rules precluded amendment of the judgment of conviction. See Rule 6-801 NMRA 1998. The Division also argues on appeal that it asserted in the district court that a finding of guilt under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(L)(2) (1997), was a conviction regardless of sentence imposition. Driver\u2019s answer brief, on the other hand, contends that the Division did not appear at the scheduled hearing. The docketing statement filed in this appeal, however, stated that the Division participated in the hearing by telephone, although the Division\u2019s brief was silent on that point.\n{8} At the district court hearing on Driver\u2019s petition, Driver allegedly argued that the Division must honor the magistrate court\u2019s amended judgment and sentence dismissing the DWI charge against Driver. Apparently, no evidence was adduced at that hearing. No transcript of the district court proceedings has been made a part of the record on appeal. The only document that is of record as having been filed after the district court hearing is the district court\u2019s \u201cOrder for Reinstatement of Driving Privileges.\u201d The record contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law that would illuminate the basis for the district court\u2019s decision.\nII. DISCUSSION\n{9} Although the Division did not argue our basis for reversal, an appellate court may raise a jurisdictional issue sua sponte. See Wilson v. Denver, 1998-NMSC-016, \u00b68, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153. Similarly, Rule 12-216CB), NMRA 1998, does not require preservation of jurisdictional questions. \u201cA jurisdictional defect may not be waived and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings....\u201d Armijo v. Save \u2018N Gain, 108 N.M. 281, 282, 771 P.2d 989, 990 (Ct.App. 1989). Only the most unusual circumstances warrant overlooking procedural defects. See Trujillo v. Serrano, 117 N.M. 273, 278, 871 P.2d 369, 374 (1994).\n{10} Article VI, section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution authorizes district courts to issue writs of certiorari to inferior judges or courts. See Littlefield v. State Taxation and Revenue Dep\u2019t, 114 N.M. 390, 393, 839 P.2d 134, 137 (Ct.App.1992). Writs of certiorari provide a method of judicial review where an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded illegally and there is no statutorily specified mode of review. See id. Here, no statute specified review of the revocation of Driver\u2019s license based on the magistrate court\u2019s initial conviction for Driver\u2019s third DWI offense. See id. at 392, 839 P.2d at 136 (noting lack of express statutory authority for the right to appeal from a mandatory driver\u2019s license revocation).\n{11} Section 66-5-36 provides that the right to appeal under it does not apply to revocations that are mandatory under the law. Under the facts of this appeal, we believe revocation of Driver\u2019s license to operate a motor vehicle in New Mexico was mandatory. See \u00a7 66-5-5(D) (providing that the Division shall not issue a driver\u2019s license for ten years to a person with three DWI convictions within a ten-year period). Consequently, Driver did not have a right to appeal, and a writ of certiorari provided the only mode of review for revocation of her license. See Littlefield, 114 N.M. at 392-93, 839 P.2d at 136-37 (stating that district court may review mandatory driver\u2019s license revocation by a petition for writ of certiorari).\n{12} As a result, we analyze Driver\u2019s Petition for Judicial Review as a writ of certiorari. Rule 1-075(A), (B) NMRA 1998 provides for review in district court of administrative orders by writ of certiorari in the absence of a statutory right of review. Subsection C(l) of that rule requires that a petition for a writ of certiorari contain \u201cthe grounds on which jurisdiction of the district court is based[.]\u201d Similarly, subsection G(2) provides that the court shall issue a writ if the petition makes a prima facie showing of the court\u2019s jurisdiction over the agency.\n{13} Driver\u2019s petition failed to allege these jurisdictional requirements. Driver did not comply with the requirement of Rule 1-075. We also determine that there are no unusual circumstances that would warrant overlooking this procedural defect. Consequently, we hold that Driver did not properly invoke the district court\u2019s jurisdiction.\nIII. CONCLUSION\n{14} Sua sponte, we reverse the district court\u2019s order reinstating Driver\u2019s driving privileges. In seeking review of her license revocation, Driver did not properly petition for a writ of certiorari. She failed to show the district court\u2019s jurisdiction over the subject matter. In reversing, we do not condone the Division\u2019s failure to appear at the district court hearing or to make a record.\n{15} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nFLORES and ARMIJO, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "APODACA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David C. Chavez, Law Office of David C. Chavez, Los Lunas, for Petitioner-Appellee.",
      "Tom Udall, Attorney General, Judith Mellow, Special Asst. Attorney General, Taxation and Revenue Department, Santa Fe, for Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "1998-NMCA-126\n964 P.2d 869\nTena MASTERMAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. STATE of New Mexico TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant.\nNo. 18376.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 12, 1998.\nDavid C. Chavez, Law Office of David C. Chavez, Los Lunas, for Petitioner-Appellee.\nTom Udall, Attorney General, Judith Mellow, Special Asst. Attorney General, Taxation and Revenue Department, Santa Fe, for Respondent-Appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0705-01",
  "first_page_order": 745,
  "last_page_order": 748
}