Life Without Parole, a Lesser Count, and the Wrong Appellate Clerk
In 2023, a district court jury convicted Marcus of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole. The same jury convicted him of tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony, and the judge imposed a consecutive three-year sentence. Trial counsel timely filed a notice of appeal in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, listing both convictions and several evidentiary rulings. The Court of Appeals clerk docketed the appeal. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the life sentence places the entire appeal in the Supreme Court. Marcus's appellate lawyer responds that the tampering count is a separate, non-life conviction that belongs in the Court of Appeals and that the evidentiary rulings affect both counts. The district court has not certified any question. Oral argument is set.
1. Which court has appellate jurisdiction over Marcus's murder conviction and life sentence, and does the fact that the notice of appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals change the answer? Explain the constitutional and statutory framework.
Read the worked answer
The New Mexico Supreme Court has mandatory appellate jurisdiction over a criminal case in which a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed. The Court of Appeals' jurisdiction is limited to appeals from district court except those that may be taken directly to the Supreme Court. Because Marcus received life without parole on the murder count, that count belongs in the Supreme Court as of right, not by certiorari. Filing the notice in the Court of Appeals is a clerical mistake; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the parties' filing choice or by the clerk's docketing. The Court of Appeals should transfer the life-sentence portion to the Supreme Court, or dismiss so a proper notice can be filed, and the Supreme Court should not treat its review as discretionary. The State's motion to dismiss in the Court of Appeals is well taken as to the murder count, though the proper remedy is transfer rather than loss of the appeal if the notice was timely.
2. What should the appellate courts do with the tampering-with-evidence conviction and the evidentiary rulings that affect both counts? Can the Court of Appeals keep that part of the appeal while the Supreme Court takes the murder count?
Read the worked answer
The tampering conviction, standing alone, is not a life-sentence case, so the Court of Appeals has potential appellate jurisdiction over it. But the evidentiary rulings Marcus challenges affect both counts, and piecemeal review creates a risk of inconsistent decisions. The cleanest approach is for the Court of Appeals to transfer the entire appeal to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court can then decide all issues or remand the non-life counts to the Court of Appeals for decision. The Court of Appeals should not decide the murder conviction. If the Supreme Court accepts the whole case, it exercises mandatory jurisdiction over the life sentence and may exercise pendent jurisdiction over the lesser count. The key point is that the Court of Appeals cannot retain the life-sentence count merely because a lesser count is also present.
3. Suppose the State had lost a pretrial motion to suppress Marcus's confession and wanted immediate review before trial. What route would be available, and how does it differ from the direct appeal after conviction?
Read the worked answer
The State cannot take a direct appeal from a pretrial suppression order as if it were a final judgment. It would need permission for an interlocutory appeal: the district court would have to certify the order under the applicable rule, and the Court of Appeals would have to grant permission. That is discretionary and separate from the mandatory direct appeal after conviction. If the case later ends in a life sentence, the Supreme Court's mandatory jurisdiction attaches to the final judgment, but that does not retroactively make the pretrial order directly appealable. The State could also seek an extraordinary writ, but writs are disfavored where another path exists. This task tests the difference between final-judgment appeals and interlocutory review.