City of Albuquerque ex rel. Albuquerque Police Dep't v. Waller
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, ex rel. 3 ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, 5 v. NO. 35,446 6 ONE (1) 1996 DODGE P/U SILVER, 7 VIN: 1B7HF16ZXTJ191924, 8 NEW MEXICO LICENSE # 294RLJ, 9 Defendant, 10 and 11 DIANNA WALLER, 12 Claimant-Appellant. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 14 Alan M. Malott, District Judge 15 16 17 18 City of Albuquerque Legal Department Jessica Hernandez, City Attorney Kyle Hibner, Assistant City Attorney Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee 20 Dianna Wallen 1 Albuquerque, NM 2 Pro Se Appellant 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 WECHSLER, Judge. 5 {1} Claimant-Appellant Dianna Waller (Appellant) has sought to appeal from an 6 order granting forfeiture pursuant to the City of Albuquerque’s DWI-related civil 7 forfeiture ordinance. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition 8 in which we proposed to dismiss. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. 9 After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. 10 {2} As we previously observed, the filing of a timely notice of appeal is a 11 mandatory precondition to this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Yalkut, 2008-NMSC-009, 12 ¶ 24, 143 N.M. 387, 176 P.3d 1119 (per curiam). In this case, Appellant filed her 13 notice of appeal nearly a month late. We therefore proposed to dismiss. See, e.g., 14 Chavez v. U-Haul Co. of N.M., 1997-NMSC-051, ¶¶ 19-22, 124 N.M. 165, 947 P.2d 15 122 (declining to hear an appeal filed thirty days late). 16 {3} In her memorandum in opposition Appellant offers neither any basis for 17 extending the filing deadline nor any justification for the delay. [MIO 2] Instead, we 18 understand Appellant to invite the Court to consider the “extensive facts” and the 19 merits of the appeal notwithstanding the untimely filing. [MIO 29A] We decline. 2 1 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed 2 summary disposition, we dismiss. 3 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 ________________________________ JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7 ________________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 9 ________________________________ 10 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 3
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.
