June 25, 2019- Jerry Stockstill v. State of New Mexico, No. A-1-CA-37904

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 JERRY STOCKSTILL,
3 	Petitioner-Appellant,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37904
5 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
6 	Respondent-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY
8 James L. Sanchez, District Judge
9 Kennedy, Hernandez & Associates, P.C.
10 Paul John Kennedy
11 	Albuquerque, NM
12 for Appellant
· 13 	Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
14 	Santa Fe, NM
15 	Jane A. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General
16 Albuquerque, NM
17 for Appellee
18 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
19 HANISEE, Judge.
20 	{I} 	Petitioner appeals from the district court's order dismissing his Rule 5-803
21 	NMRA petition for post-sentence relief for untimeliness. In this Court's :notice of
22 proposed disposition, we proposed to summarily vacate the judgment and remand
23 	for further proceedings. [CN 1, 9] The State has filed a response informing this Court
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/25/2019 8:19 AM

1 that it does not intend to file a memorandum in opposition, and it agrees with our
2 proposed disposition. [State's Response 1] Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our
3 calendar notice, which we briefly set forth below, we vacate the judgment of the
4 district court and remand for further proceedings.
5 	{2} 	As we stated in our calendar notice, the district court's failure to make or
6 accept from the parties essential findings of fact and conclusions of law precludes
7 meaningful review and requires remand. With the absence of factual findings or
8 legal conclusions, and given the numerous legal and factual disputes between the
9 parties, we are unable to discern the basis on which the district court dismissed the
10 petition. The lack of case law applying the provisions of Rule 5-803 likewise makes
11 	it difficult for us to presume the basis for the district court's summary decision. The
12 district court could have reached its conclusion on any number of grounds, and we
13 	are not inclined to address every potential and novel legal basis for the district court's
14 dismissal in this case.
15 	{3} 	For example, our notice recognized that although Petitioner filed the petition
16 	several years following his- release from incarceration, the district court's order
17 provides no indication as to why it determined the petition was not filed within a
18 	reasonable time, in light of his claims of actual innocence and newly-discovered
19 evidence. We likewise cannot discern the basis for the district court's apparent
20 	conclusion that there 	was 	an 	absence 	of "good 	cause, 	excusable 	neglect, 	or
2

1 extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of ... [P]etitioner" to justify the late
2 filing, or, alternatively, whether the district court failed to consider these factors. See
3 Rule 5-803. Petitioner sets forth a variety of reasons as to why he contends this
4 matter could be deemed timely or could fall within these categories; including, his
5 claims regarding the newly-discovered evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses
6 by the prosecutor, 	failure 	by the prosecutor to 	disclose exculpatory evidence
7 amounting to a fraud upon the court, ineffective assistance of counsel, and claims of
8 actual innocence. [2 RP 352-98, 439-49] In this case, the basis for the district court's
9 decision to depart from the manner in which extraordinary circumstances have been
10 	defined in other contexts is unclear. See, e.g., Toth v. Albuquerque Police Dep 't,
11 	1997-NMCA-079, 	,r,r 8-10, 	123 	N.M. 	637, 	944 	P.2d 285 	(discussing judicial
12 authority 	to 	expunge 	criminal 	records 	and 	suggesting 	that 	"extraordinary
13 	circumstances" may include "factual innocence").
14 {4} 	For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we
15 	conclude that the lack of findings and conclusions entered in this case prevents this
16 Court from engaging in meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we vacate the
17 judgment of the district court and remand, to permit the district court to hold an
18 	evidentiary 	hearing, 	if necessary, 	and to 	enter findings 	and 	conclusions 	that
19 adequately address whether the petition was filed within a reasonable time, or
3

1 whether good cause, excusable neglect, or extraordinary circumstances beyond the
2 control of Petitioner justified filing the petition beyond a reasonable time.
3 	{5}
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 WE CONCUR:
...
jL.~
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
4