NM: DA criticized for failing to consolidate codefendants for appeal of suppression order

The writ of cert in this case is quashed. There were two cases that should have been noted as companion cases by the DA when the appeals were filed and weren’t. That was important information that bore on avoiding inconsistent decisions below as the cases worked their way up. State v. Gonzales, 2014-NMSC-039, 2013 N.M. LEXIS 534 (April 15, 2013)*:

[*6] We ultimately agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the Court of Appeals in this case and, therefore, quashed the writ of certiorari. Although the quashing of our writ in this case may appear to leave a decision in place that would allow Maso to be prosecuted with evidence that was suppressed as to Gonzales — despite no appreciable difference in their situations — we hasten to add that after the Court of Appeals issued Gonzales, the State dismissed the charges against both Gonzales and Maso, even though it could have proceeded in its case against Maso. As such, any continuing concern about the inconsistent application of the law for these two co-defendants has been alleviated. Nonetheless, we are concerned by the fact that the Attorney General was apparently unaware that the District Attorney had filed a nolle prosequi in this case, as it did not disclose to this Court—either in its petition for writ of certiorari, its briefs or in its oral argument—that a nolle prosequi had been filed in this case. Although this nolle prosequi does not strip this Court of its jurisdiction, it is nonetheless essential information regarding the procedural history of this case since it stripped the district court of its jurisdiction in this case. However, while it is important that this Court be made aware of essential pieces of information such as this, the Discussion in this Decision focuses on the more serious rule violation the District Attorney committed in these cases and explains the impact of the violation.

. . .

[*13] Because we ultimately considered the legal analysis and conclusion of the Court of Appeals with regard to the Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue raised in this appeal to be proper, we quashed the writ of certiorari. We did so amidst our serious concerns about the procedural hornet’s nest and unwarranted inconsistencies in opinions that would have been easily avoided had the District Attorney complied with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.