State v. Glomski
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 34,007 5 CHRISTOPHER GLOMSKI, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 8 James Lawrence Sanchez, District Judge 9 10 11 12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Kenneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 15 16 17 The Alarid Law Firm, P.C. Michael Alarid, Jr. Camille Cordova Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellant 19 20 KENNEDY, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant appeals a district court’s order requiring him to make restitution. We 2 dismiss the appeal as premature, pursuant to State v. Candy L., 2003-NMCA-109, ¶ 6, 3 134 N.M. 213, 75 P.3d 429. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 Defendant pleaded guilty to four charges. The district court accepted {2} 6 Defendant’s plea, and sentenced him, requiring him to pay restitution as a condition 7 of his probation, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-17-1 (2005). The district court 8 issued an order setting the amount of restitution at $32,893.11. The order also required 9 Defendant to work with probation and parole to prepare a restitution plan and submit 10 that plan to the district court for approval or modification. Defendant appealed the 11 district court’s order. Nothing in the record indicates that a restitution plan was ever 12 filed with the district court. 13 {3} Defendant’s challenge on appeal goes to the very order itself; he claims that the 14 district court erred in awarding restitution. The State, on the other hand, suggests that 15 this appeal is premature, as no restitution plan has yet been entered in the district 16 court. Though the amount of restitution has been set, nothing in the record indicates 17 the manner in which Defendant is to satisfy his restitution obligation. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 The State suggests that this appeal is premature for lack of a final order, {4} 2 1 pursuant to Candy L., 2003-NMCA-109, ¶ 6. This Court in Candy L. determined, 2 under analogous factual circumstances, that although the amount of restitution was set 3 by order, appeal of that order prior to the filing of a restitution plan rendered the 4 appeal premature. Id. In that case, the order did not dispose of the case to the fullest 5 extent possible, as it contemplated the subsequent preparation of a restitution plan. Id.; 6 see Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 1992-NMSC-005, ¶ 14, 113 N.M. 231, 824 7 P.2d 1033 (stating the general rule on finality: “an order or judgment is not considered 8 final unless all issues of law and fact have been determined and the case disposed of 9 by the trial court to the fullest extent possible” (internal quotation marks and citation 10 omitted)). We reasoned that the order therefore was not final because the respondent 11 could contend that the plan created was too onerous or impossible to carry out, and we 12 could be presented with a second appeal regarding the restitution plan once it was 13 filed with the district court. Candy L., 2003-NMCA-109, ¶ 6. Because the restitution 14 plan is a substantive determination regarding the manner in which restitution is to 15 paid, it was not merely a ministerial act, and the order was not final for purposes of 16 appeal. 17 {5} Though the district court in this case specifically ordered restitution and set the 18 amount of restitution to be paid, it also contemplated that a restitution plan would be 19 prepared and filed with the court. In fact, it made compliance with that plan a 3 1 condition of Defendant’s probation. 2 {6} We note that Defendant attempts to counter the State’s assertion regarding 3 finality by asserting that he has already begun to be executed against for restitution 4 in an amount more than $2,000 from his wages as of the date that the briefs were filed. 5 Although this allegation is concerning, we find no order or evidence for this 6 proposition in the record and Defendant points to no evidence demonstrating its 7 existence. As this appeal is premature for the lack of a final order concerning 8 restitution, to the extent that execution on a non-final restitution order may be taking 9 place, such garnishment or other execution may be as well. However, for reasons of 10 non-finality discussed above, we do not consider Defendant’s argument. See Headley 11 v. Morgan Management Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 12 (declining to review an argument made in the reply brief that was underdeveloped and 13 made without any citation to the record). While inviting the district court to review the 14 status of its restitution orders in this case, we follow the precedent set forth in Candy 15 L., 2003-NMCA-109, ¶ 6, and err on the side of avoiding piecemeal appeals and 16 enhancing judicial efficiency, dismissing this appeal without prejudice for lack of a 17 final order. Defendant will also have the opportunity to address any premature 18 garnishment issues that may be occurring prior to the approval of the restitution plan 4 1 once this matter is remanded to the district court. 2 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 ______________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6 _________________________________ 7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 8 _________________________________ 9 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
