Edmondson v. Janca

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. A-1-CA-42682 STEVE EDMONDSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T. REESE JANCA, Defendant-Appellant, and GREEN LION MEDIA, LLC, Defendant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SOCORRO COUNTY Mercedes C. Murphy, District Court Judge Border Law Office, P.A.

Dean Border Albuquerque, NM for Appellee T. Reese Janca Socorro, NM Pro Se Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HENDERSON, Judge. {1} Appellant appeals from a civil judgment against him. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm, and Appellant has responded with a timely memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain unpersuaded that our initial proposed disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm. {2} Appellant continues to raise assertions of error related to an alleged trial setting on January 19, 2021, that he contends was cancelled by the district court. Appellant initially contended that the district court’s cancellation of the trial setting resulted in his inability to be represented by the counsel of his choice. {3} As we noted in our notice of proposed summary disposition, the record indicates that trial in this matter was set for February 17, 2020. [RP 718] On January 17, 2020, the district court held a hearing on pending motions, after which it entered an order stating that the case could not proceed until Defendant Green Lion Media, LLC, obtained counsel. [RP 799] The district court stated that trial would be reset at a later date and ordered that Appellant and Defendant Green Lion Media, LLC had sixty days in which to obtain counsel. [RP 799-800] {4} On June 22, 2020, the Woods Law Firm (Roscoe A. Woods) entered a special limited entry of appearance to appear on behalf of Defendant Green Lion Media, LLC for a status hearing scheduled for June 22, 2020. [RP 813] Appellee filed a motion to disqualify Roscoe Woods on June 26, 2020, and the district court entered an order denying the motion on July 15, 2020. [RP 815, 832] The district court thereafter set jury trial for September 27, 2021. [RP 836] On June 4, 2021, however, the Woods Law Firm filed a notice of withdrawal of special limited appearance on the bases that Roscoe Woods had been appointed as a Seventh Judicial District Judge and the scope of representation pursuant to the special limited appearance had concluded. [RP 841] {5} We therefore noted that the record did not support Appellant’s contention that trial was ever set for January 19, 2021. Appellant refers us to the audio log notes of the July 15, 2021 hearing, on Appellee’s motion to disqualify the Woods Law Firm from representing Appellant. Based on our review of the audio recording of that hearing, the district court initially indicated that it intended to set a hearing for January 19, 2021. [FTR: 7/15/2020: 11:22:33] For reasons that are unclear from the record, however, the district court did not set a January 19, 2021 trial date. We further note that the attachments to Appellant’s response to Appellee’s motion to dismiss his counterclaims indicate that on January 11, 2021, Attorney Roscoe Woods sought a trial setting in this matter, and asked specifically for the September 27, 2021 trial date. [RP 930-31] {6} Appellant continues to assert in his memorandum in opposition that the matter was set for January 19, 2021, and that the district court judge “tampered with factual evidence in the matter before the Court, deleting the evidentiary record of a January 19th-22nd 2021 trial . . . .” [MIO 1] We understand Appellant to contend that, after denying Appellee’s motion to disqualify Attorney Roscoe Woods, the district court judge cancelled the January 19, 2021 trial setting, to assist Appellee in preventing Appellant from being represented by Attorney Roscoe Woods. [MIO 6] For the reasons set out above, however, the record does not support Appellant’s contention that the district court cancelled a January 19, 2021 trial setting, and then acted to tamper with the court record to hide evidence of the trial setting. [MIO 1-3] Additionally, Appellant’s speculation in this regard is not evidence on which this Court can rely. See, e.g., Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104 (stating that the mere assertions of counsel are not evidence). {7} Moreover, the record reflects that Attorney Roscoe Woods’ appointment as a district court judge and the limited nature of his representation of Appellant were the reasons he was ultimately unable to represent Appellant at trial, not the actions of the district court. [RP 841] We therefore reject Appellant’s argument that the district court denied him his right to counsel of choice. See generally Udall v. Townsend, 1998- NMCA-162, ¶ 3, 126 N.M. 251, 968 P.2d 341 (“While we rely in large part upon the appellant’s statement of the facts, if the record shows otherwise, we will not accept that factual recitation.”). And, to the extent Appellant suggests that this Court has somehow “witnessed and testified” that the evidence in the district court record was intentionally tampered with, we reject this assertion. [MIO 3-4, 8] {8} With respect to Appellant’s remaining arguments regarding judicial bias, the improper denial of Defendant Green Lion Media’s counterclaims, and Appellant’s allegations regarding the actions of district court staff, we continue to rely on the analyses of these issues set out in our notice of proposed summary disposition. [MIO 7- 9] See generally State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and explaining that the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. {9} For these reasons, and those stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm the district court. {10} IT IS SO ORDERED.

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge WE CONCUR: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Chief Judge KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge