N.M. Ct. App. Policies & Procedures Manual VII

A. Rule 12-406 NMRA states that “[t]he timely disposition of appeals is

an essential requirement of justice” and that the Court should render

decisions in cases within six (6) months of submission to a panel. If an

opinion has not been circulated within six (6) months of the time the

case is submitted to a panel, the chief judge may contact the author or

call a panel conference to discuss ways of expediting the case.

If a case has been pending more than six (6) months after submission,

the chief judge may reassign the case, unless circumstances exist that

support non-reassignment. If a children’s court case has been pending

for more than 60 (sixty) days after submission and an opinion has not

been circulated, the chief judge should reassign the case, unless

exceptional circumstances exist.

For purposes of this provision, the following events shall toll the time

from submission for the times indicated:

(1) Oral argument—from the date of the clerk’s notice of argument

to the date of the argument;

(2) Order of limited remand or for further briefing—from the date of

the order of limited remand or for further briefing until the

deadline set forth in the order for a party or lower court to

perform any action;

(3) Change in authorship—on the date of the clerk’s panel change

notice, the case shall be deemed to have been submitted to its

new author.

B. Authorships and participations on summary calendar and EBD cases

shall be given priority. Suggested revisions to summary calendar

opinions should be indicated through the use of tracked changes. A

participating judge may dissent by separate opinion or by signature only

on a summary calendar memorandum opinion.

C. The authoring judge’s chambers shall thoroughly cite-check and

proofread a proposed opinion before circulating it to the panel.

Citations to internal references, such as transcripts, recordings, and the

record, are unnecessary when relaying undisputed facts from the briefs;

however, citation to the briefs to support undisputed facts and/or the

fact that they are undisputed is necessary. Guidelines for doing

technical work on authorships and participations are found in the New

Mexico Appellate Courts’ Technical Handbook. Dissenting and other

separate opinions shall be teched by the chambers of the author thereof.

The rest of the teching process is to be completed pursuant to the New

Mexico Appellate Courts’ Technical Handbook and the Court policies

for the circulation and technical review of proposed opinions in effect.

D. Each participating judge has a responsibility to carefully read and

analyze the pertinent submitted material and to determine if the

proposed result, analysis, and decision are correct.

E. Guidelines for substantive suggestions on memorandum opinions: The

cardinal rule is to do these the way summary cases are done—that is, if

the result is correct and the reasoning sound, even if you would not

choose to phrase it the same way or even if you might take a different

approach, a simple concurrence is in order. Substantive suggestions

should be limited to incorrect result or reasoning, or reasoning that

vastly improves the opinion. Stylistic suggestions should be limited

wherever possible. Awkwardness in language should be left alone

unless one has to read a particular sentence three times to get its

meaning (i.e., if you get the meaning after two readings, no suggestion

should be offered).

F. The first participating memorandum is due five (5) business days after

circulation of the opinion (with the first day being the day after the

circulation date), and the second participation memorandum is due

three (3) business days later or eight (8) business days total, whichever

is later. The participation memoranda shall indicate whether the

participating judge concurs in the result and analysis; set out any

suggestions for additions, deletions, or other revisions; and comment

on any technical matters. Thereafter, on receipt of the memorandum of

the first participating judge, the second participating judge shall

respond in the same manner.

G. If a participating judge has not responded within their allotted time, it

shall be the responsibility of both the author and the other participating

judge to inquire as to the status of the case in an attempt to meet the

Court’s goal of obtaining both participants’ memoranda within the

allotted time. If for any reason a participating judge cannot respond

within the required time, the time to respond may be extended with the

consent of the authoring judge on the panel. Such requests should be

made twenty-four (24) hours ahead of the deadline. Timely

participations should take priority over all other matters.

H. If a participating judge fails to respond within thirty (30) days of the

time a proposed opinion is circulated by an authoring judge and if at

least one other judge has concurred in the opinion, the case may be filed

with the notation that the other participant did not respond. If the

participant who has responded has dissented or specially concurred in

the opinion, and a participating judge has failed to respond thirty (30)

days after the opinion has been circulated, the chief judge may reassign

another judge to serve on the panel in lieu of the nonresponding

participating judge.

I. Consistent with the complexity of the case, a dissenting/specially

concurring judge shall be afforded a reasonable period of time to write

their dissenting/specially concurring opinion. The target should be ten

(10) calendar days. If the ten-day period cannot be met, the

dissenting/specially concurring judge shall propose a time frame. If the

panel does not agree with the proposed time frame, the chief judge shall

set a reasonable deadline. If the deadline set by the chief judge is not

met, the majority opinion may be filed with the notation that the other

participant has specially concurred or dissented, but without the

dissenting or specially concurring opinion.

J. If both the first and second participants do not agree with the author’s

proposed opinion and the author does not agree to revise the opinion,

authorship duties shall be assumed to the first participant, unless the

panel agrees otherwise.

K. If an opinion needs to be recirculated by the authoring judge, it should

be circulated within thirty (30) days of the panel’s decision to

recirculate. Participation memoranda shall be sent on the recirculation

in accordance with paragraph F, above.

L. All proposed opinions (including dissenting and concurring opinions)

shall be emailed to all judges, the chief appellate attorney, and the

reporter of decisions at the time the proposed opinion is sent for

technical review. When the opinion is circulated to the Court, each of

the panel’s chambers shall check to make sure all accepted changes

from their own participation memoranda have been incorporated into

the final opinion.

M. Paralegals will circulate opinions finalized for signature approval to the

panel and their supervisor. Judges should provide signature approval by

11:00 a.m. on the following business day. Judges taking scheduled

leave shall give their signature approval for any cases in the technical

review process prior to going on leave or shall make other arrangements

to have their signature approval provided timely.

N. As soon as a filed opinion is emailed to the Court from the clerk’s

office, the author’s chambers shall proofread the opinion and notify the

clerk’s office of any errors that have occurred.