N.M. R. Mun. Ct. P. 8-403
An order revoking release shall include written findings of the individualized facts justifying revocation and shall be filed within three (3) days of the evidentiary hearing. If the court continues or amends the defendant's conditions of release, then a written order continuing or amending the defendant's conditions of release shall be provided to the defendant at the time of release from custody if the defendant is in custody, or within three (3) days of the hearing if the defendant is not in custody.
N.M. R. Mun. Ct. P. 8-403
Committee commentary. - The 2017 amendments to this rule clarify the procedure for the court to follow when considering revocation of the defendant's pretrial release or modification of the defendant's conditions of release for violating the conditions of release. In State v. Segura, 2014-NMCA-037, ¶¶ 1, 24-25, 321 P.3d 140, overruled on other grounds by State v. Ameer, 2018- NMSC-030, ¶ 69, 458 P.3d 390, the Court of Appeals held that due process requires courts to afford the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court may revoke the defendant's bail and remand the defendant into custody. See also Tijerina v. Baker, 1968-NMSC-009, ¶ 9, 78 N.M. 770, 438 P.2d 514 (explaining that the right to bail is not absolute); id. ¶ 10 ("If the court has inherent power to revoke bail of a defendant during trial and pending final disposition of the criminal case in order to prevent interference with witnesses or the proper administration of justice, the right to do so before trial seems to be equally apparent under a proper set of facts."); State v. Rivera, 2003-NMCA-059, ¶ 20, 133 N.M. 571, 66 P.3d 344 ("Conditions of release are separate, coercive powers of a court, apart from the bond itself. They are enforceable by immediate arrest, revocation, or modification if violated. These conditions of release are intended to protect the public and keep the defendant in line."), rev'd on other grounds, 2004-NMSC-001, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939.
As used in Paragraph D, a "local detention center" is "one that is commonly used by the municipal court in the normal course of business and not necessarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the court." Rule 8-401(A)(3) NMRA.
Paragraph G provides that the New Mexico Rules of Evidence do not apply at a revocation hearing, consistent with Rule 11-1101(D)(3)(e) NMRA. As with courts in other types of proceedings in which the Rules of Evidence do not apply, a court presiding over a pretrial detention hearing is responsible "for assessing the reliability and accuracy" of the information presented. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (explaining that in a pretrial detention hearing the judge "retains the responsibility for assessing the reliability and accuracy of the government's information, whether presented by proffer or by direct proof"); State v. Ingram, 155 A.3d 597 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017) (holding that it is within the discretion of the detention hearing court to determine whether a pretrial detention order may be supported in an individual case by documentary evidence, proffer, one or more live witnesses, or other forms of information the court deems sufficient); see also United States v. Marshall, 519 F. Supp. 751, 754 (E.D. Wis. 1981) ("So long as the information which the sentencing judge considers has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy, the information may properly be taken into account in passing sentence."), aff'd, 719 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1983); State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 36-39, 43, 150 N.M. 84, 257 P.3d 904 (explaining that in a probation revocation hearing, the court should focus on the reliability of the evidence); State v. Vigil, 1982-NMCA-058, ¶ 24, 97 N.M. 749, 643 P.2d 618 (holding in a probation revocation hearing that hearsay untested for accuracy or reliability lacked probative value).
Paragraph I requires the municipal court to prioritize the scheduling of trial and other proceedings for cases in which the defendant is held in custody. See generally United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 (1987) (concluding that the detention provisions in the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, did not violate due process, in part because of "the stringent time limitations of the Speedy Trial Act,"18 U.S.C. § 3161); Am. Bar Ass'n, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Pretrial Release, Standard 10-5.11 (3d ed. 2007) ("Every jurisdiction should establish, by statute or court rule, accelerated time limitations within which detained defendants should be tried consistent with the sound administration of justice."). This rule does not preclude earlier or more regular status review hearings. The purpose of the hearing is to determine how best to expedite a trial in the case. A meaningful review of the progress of the case includes assessment of the parties' compliance with applicable deadlines, satisfaction of discovery obligations, and witness availability, among other matters. If the court determines that the parties have made insufficient progress on these measures, then it shall issue an appropriate scheduling order.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-005, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after July 1, 2017; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 22-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2022; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. S-1-RCR-2023-00021, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2023.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2024 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. S-1-RCR-2024-00068, effective May 8, 2024, provided the timing for the order at the completion of the evidentiary hearing, and required that the written order continuing or amending the defendant's conditions of release be provided to the defendant at the time of release from custody if the defendant is in custody or within three days of the hearing if the defendant is not in custody; and in Paragraph F, added "and shall be filed within three (3) days of the evidentiary hearing. If the court continues or amends the defendant's conditions of release, then a written order continuing or amending the defendant's conditions of release shall be provided to the defendant at the time of release from custody if the defendant is in custody, or within three (3) days of the hearing if the defendant is not in custody". The 2023 amendment, approved by Supreme Court No. S-1-RCR-2023-00021, effective December 31, 2023, revised the committee commentary. The 2022 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 22-8300-015, effective December 31, 2022, required the municipal court, in cases in which the defendant has been detained for more than forty-five days pending trial, to conduct a status review hearing in order to review the progress of the case, and required the municipal court to issue an appropriate scheduling order if the court determines that insufficient progress has been made in the case, made certain technical, nonsubstantive changes, and revised the committee commentary; and in Paragraph I, added "The court shall hold a status review hearing in any case in which the defendant has been held for more than forty-five (45) days. The purpose of the status review hearing is to conduct a meaningful review of the progress of the case. If the court determines that insufficient progress has been made, then the court shall issue an appropriate scheduling order.". The 2018 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 18-8300-024, effective February 1, 2019, extended the period of time within which the court must hold an initial hearing when the defendant is not being held in the local detention center and authorized the court to revoke the defendant's release if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a crime; in Subparagraph D(1), added "if the defendant is in custody, the hearing shall be held", and added "if the defendant is being held in the local detention center, or no later than five (5) days after the defendant is detained if the defendant is not being held in the local detention center"; in Subparagraph F(3)(a), added "that there is either"; added Subparagraph F(3)(a)(i), in Subparagraph F(3)(a)(ii), after "willfully violated" added "any other"; and Subparagraph F(3)(b), added "finds that there is clear and convincing evidence". The 2017 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-005, effective July 1, 2017, clarified the procedures for the court to follow when considering revocation of the defendant's pretrial release or modification of the defendant's conditions of release for violating the conditions of release, and added the committee commentary; in the heading, after "Revocation" added "or modification", and after "release", added "orders"; and deleted former Paragraphs A through C and added new Paragraphs A through J. The 2008 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-047, effective December 31, 2008, added a new Paragraph B and designated former Paragraph B as Paragraph C. The 1990 amendment, effective for cases filed in the municipal courts on or after September 1, 1990, in Paragraph A deleted "Paragraph A of" preceding "Rule 8-401" in Subparagraph (1), deleted former Subparagraph (2), imposing conditions authorized under Paragraph C of Rule 8-401, and redesignated former Subparagraph (3) as present Subparagraph (2); rewrote Paragraph B; and deleted Paragraph C, relating to record on review.