Chandler v. Cowen

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 SCOTT CHANDLER and COLETTE CHANDLER, 3 husband and wife, d/b/a TIERRA BLANCA 4 RANCH HIGH COUNTRY YOUTH PROGRAM, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 v. NO. A-1-CA-35536 7 STEVE COWEN, RENE ROMO, and NEW 8 MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 9 NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE AND ITS 10 OFFICERS INCLUDING NEW MEXICO 11 STATE POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES I 12 AND II ON GOVERNOR’S SECURITY TEAM, 13 Defendants, 14 and 15 STEVE E. COWEN, 16 Cross and Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, 17 v. 18 GAIL LYNN COWEN, 19 Third Party Defendant-Appellee, 20 and 21 SCOTT CHANDLER, COLETTE 1 CHANDLER, SHERRY ANDERSON, 2 CARING FOR YOUTH, CHERYL 3 MORGAN AND DOES 1 through 100, 4 Counter and Third Party Defendants. 5 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY 6 Henry R. Quintero, District Judge 7 Steve E. Cowen 8 San Diego, CA 9 Pro Se Appellant 10 Law Office of Kevin C. Young 11 Kevin C. Young 12 San Diego, CA 13 Robert M. Fiser 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Judge. 18 {1} Appellant Steve Cowen asserts in his brief in chief that he is appealing from the 19 district court’s dismissal of his cross-claim against his ex-wife, Appellee Gail Cowen, 20 for lack of personal jurisdiction. 21 DISCUSSION 22 {2} Appellant filed a two-and-a-half page brief in chief containing no citation to [2] 1 the 9-volume, 1701-page record. Because Appellant failed to comply with our Rules 2 of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rules 12-312(A), NMRA 3 (providing that “[i]f an appellant fails to file . . . in the Court of Appeals, . . . a brief 4 in chief as provided by these rules, such failure may be deemed sufficient grounds for 5 dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court”), and 12-401(B)(4) NMRA (“An appeal 6 or other proceeding may be dismissed by an appellate court for failure to comply with 7 rules under Rule 12-312.”). 8 {3} Rule 12-318(A) NMRA requires that the “brief in chief of the appellant, under 9 appropriate headings and in the order herein indicated,” to contain: 10 (3) a summary of proceedings, briefly describing the nature of the 11 case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court 12 below, and including a summary of the facts relevant to the issues 13 presented for review. This summary shall contain citations to the 14 record proper, transcript of proceedings, or exhibits supporting each 15 factual representation, in accordance with the citation format found in 16 the Appendix to Rule 23-112 NMRA. . . .; 17 (4) an argument which, with respect to each issue presented, shall 18 contain a statement of the applicable standard of review, the contentions 19 of the appellant, and a statement explaining how the issue was preserved 20 in the court below, with citations to authorities, record proper, transcript 21 of proceedings, or exhibits relied on. Applicable New Mexico decisions 22 shall be cited. The argument shall set forth a specific attack on any 23 finding, or the finding shall be deemed conclusive. 24 Rule 12-318(A)(3),(4). [3] 1 {4} Appellant’s brief in chief totally fails to comply with the foregoing rule. First, 2 while a page and a half of Appellant’s two-and-a-half page brief in chief purports to 3 be a summary of the case, as Appellee states in her answer brief, Appellant merely 4 presents a “stream of consciousness” recital of allegations. Nowhere in his summary 5 of the case does Appellant provide any citation to the voluminous record. In addition, 6 the brief in chief completely fails to describe, as required by Rule 12-318(A)(3), “the 7 course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below,” or to include “a 8 summary of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review.” See Griffin v. 9 Guadalupe Med. Ctr., Inc., 1997-NMCA-012, ¶ 6 , 123 N.M. 60 , 933 P.2d 859 (“This 10 Court will not search the record to find facts, nor will we accept blanket statements 11 of fact . . . unsupported by reference to evidence in the record.” (citation omitted)). 12 Moreover, Appellant provides no citation to the record to where or how the issue he 13 attempts to argue was preserved in the district court. See Rule 12-318(A)(4). 14 {5} Because Appellant failed to file a brief in chief in accordance with our rules 15 of appellate procedure, the appeal is dismissed. 16 CONCLUSION 17 {6} The order of the district court is affirmed. 18 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. [4] 1 __________________________________ 2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4 ____________________________ 5 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 6 ____________________________ 7 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge