Summary
The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the six-month rule in Rule 5-604 NMRA did not apply because Romero's case was pending on appeal when the rule was withdrawn in State v. Savedra. The court rejected Romero's argument that retroactive withdrawal of the procedural rule violated due process or constituted an ex post facto law. It reversed the dismissal and remanded for consideration of Romero's constitutional speedy-trial claim under the applicable balancing test.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Romero's case was pending for purposes of the retroactive withdrawal of the six-month rule announced in State v. Savedra.
- Whether retroactive application of the withdrawal of the six-month rule violated federal or state due process or ex post facto principles.
- Whether Romero could still pursue dismissal based on a violation of his constitutional speedy-trial rights.
Holdings
- A criminal prosecution originating in district court remains pending for purposes of Savedra when it is at the appellate level on May 12, 2010. Because the State's appeal was pending on that date, the six-month rule did not apply to Romero's case.
- Retroactive withdrawal of the six-month rule did not violate the federal or New Mexico Constitutions because the rule was procedural, did not alter the charged crimes, punishment, or proof required for conviction, and did not deprive Romero of a protected substantive right.
- Romero may assert his constitutional right to a speedy trial on remand because the district court had not conducted the ad hoc balancing analysis required for such a claim.
Key quotations
“defendants may rely upon and assert their right to a speedy trial whenever they believe impermissible delay has occurred; whether that delay is the result of a dismissal and refiling or any other cause.” (901)
“Therefore, Romero may assert his right to a speedy trial on remand.” (904)
Factual background
Romero was charged with murder, tampering with evidence, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm or destructive device by a felon. He asserted his speedy-trial rights multiple times beginning before his October 2008 arraignment, while discovery and investigative delays continued. The State obtained extensions under Rule 5-604, but its October 2009 extension petition was filed after the trial deadline and grace period. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice under the six-month rule without conducting a full constitutional speedy-trial analysis.
Procedural history
Romero was charged in district court and repeatedly asserted his speedy-trial rights. After the State filed an untimely petition for an extension under Rule 5-604 NMRA, the district court denied the petition and dismissed the case with prejudice under the six-month rule. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the case was pending on appeal when Savedra was filed; the court directed that Romero be permitted to pursue a constitutional speedy-trial claim.
Remand instructions
Reverse the dismissal and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including allowing Romero to assert and litigate a constitutional speedy-trial claim under the applicable balancing test.