By Roger Rael
The Raton Range
There is an old rule in journalism that is worth remembering when a government record raises an uncomfortable question:
Follow the paper.
Not the rumor.
Not the courthouse gossip.
Not what somebody says happened.
The paper.
In this case, the paper leads to a 2003 criminal case in Taos County involving Robyn Simms, who today is a deputy district attorney in Valencia County.
The New Mexico Courts case record identifies the defendant as ROBYN SIMMS in case M-53-DR-200300112, filed in Taos Magistrate Court on Oct. 16, 2003.
The criminal complaint listed two charges.
The first was aggravated driving under the influence of liquor or drugs, under NMSA 66-8-102(D).
The second was failure to use safety belts.
The case record shows the charges were ultimately marked:
DISMISSED – NO PROSECUTION
The disposition date was March 17, 2004.
And here is where the facts matter.
The docket does not show that Judge Emilio Chavez dismissed the case.
The judge identified on the docket is Erminio E. Martinez.
So let’s get that straight before anybody tries to rewrite history.
There is no evidence in the record we have reviewed that Emilio Chavez personally dismissed Simms’ DWI case.
But that does not mean the record ends there.
It means we have a question that needs to be answered by the underlying file.
WHO WAS ROBYN SIMMS?
Today, the 13th Judicial District Attorney’s Office identifies Robyn Simms as a Deputy District Attorney assigned to Valencia County, with an office address in Belen and a mailing address in Los Lunas.Â
She has also publicly written in her capacity as a prosecutor about crime, pretrial detention, and the criminal justice system.
In one published piece on the 13th District Attorney’s website, Simms discusses the consequences of releasing defendants after arrest and explains the limitations prosecutors face when seeking detention before trial.
That makes the old court record worth examining.
Because the question isn’t whether someone is allowed to have a case dismissed.
Of course they are.
The question is what happened between the arrest and the dismissal.
And that answer is sitting somewhere in the records.
THEN THERE IS EMILIO CHAVEZ
The records also establish a connection between Simms and Emilio Jacob Chavez.
A 2014 Taos District Court case, D-820-DM-201400162, identifies Chavez as the petitioner and Robyn Simms as the respondent in a dissolution-of-marriage proceeding.
The case was filed Sept. 5, 2014.
The docket shows a final decree was entered Oct. 6, 2014.
That is not speculation.
It is a court record.
And the significance isn’t that two people were married.
The significance is that Chavez and Simms were personally connected while both had professional ties to the Taos criminal-justice system.
That makes the chronology worth examining.
CHAVEZ’S OWN PROFESSIONAL RECORD DESERVES SCRUTINY
There is another part of this story that should not be ignored.
Before becoming a district judge, Chavez was a Deputy District Attorney in the Eighth Judicial District.
The New Mexico Supreme Court later disciplined him over his use of investigative subpoenas.
In In re Chavez, decided in 2017, the Supreme Court found that Chavez violated Rule 16-404(A) NMRA.
The Supreme Court said Chavez had engaged in a pattern of issuing investigative subpoenas that were not connected to court or grand-jury proceedings.
The court found that Chavez had issued at least 94 subpoenas between 2012 and 2013 concerning numerous investigations.
The Supreme Court concluded that issuing subpoenas without a pending judicial action was unlawful.
The court imposed a formal reprimand, deferred for one year.
That disciplinary history is important because it establishes something much broader than a political accusation.
It establishes that Chavez’s conduct as a prosecutor was itself previously examined by the state’s highest court.
The Court of Appeals also addressed another matter involving Chavez’s conduct as a prosecutor. In that case, Chavez had obtained subpoenas directing witnesses to appear at the district attorney’s office for statements. The Court of Appeals reversed a contempt citation against Chavez because the procedure used by the district court did not satisfy due process.
Those cases do not prove anything about Simms’ 2003 DWI case.
They shouldn’t be presented that way.
But they are part of Chavez’s documented professional history.
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DWI CASE?
That’s the question.
And right now, the public docket gives us only part of the answer.
We know:
The defendant: Robyn Simms.
The court: Taos Magistrate Court.
The case: M-53-DR-200300112.
The filing date: Oct. 16, 2003.
The alleged offense date: July 26, 2003.
The principal charge: Aggravated DWI.
The disposition: Dismissed – No Prosecution.
The disposition date: March 17, 2004.
The judge shown on the docket: Erminio E. Martinez.
Those are the facts.
What we don’t yet have is the dismissal paperwork.
Who requested dismissal?
When was the request made?
Who was prosecuting the case?
Was a prosecutor assigned?
Was there an officer’s report?
Was there a plea offer?
Was there a witness problem?
Was evidence suppressed?
Was there a procedural problem?
Was there some other legitimate reason the state elected not to prosecute?
Those questions cannot be answered by looking at the one-page docket.
They require the underlying file. And the Raton Range is on the move to obtain the official documents and statements from those directly involved.
THIS IS WHERE THE STORY GETS SERIOUS
A dismissed criminal case is not proof of guilt.
That’s particularly important with a DWI allegation.
Simms was not convicted in this case.
The docket says “Dismissed – No Prosecution.”
That is the fact.
But a dismissal is not the same thing as a finding that the allegations never happened.
And it is certainly not the end of the investigative trail.
The public has a right to know how a criminal case was handled when the records are legally available.
That is especially true when the person involved later became a prosecutor.
The question isn’t whether someone should be condemned because they once had a criminal case.
The question is whether the public record tells us why the state chose not to prosecute.
There is a difference.
A big one.
FOLLOW THE RECORD
Here in Northern New Mexico, people know how stories get told.
One person tells another.
A compa tells somebody over cafecito.
Pretty soon, something that started as a question becomes “everybody knows.”
That’s not how we should do this.
If the record shows nothing improper happened, then that’s what the record shows.
If the dismissal was completely routine, say so.
If there was a legitimate prosecutorial reason, document it.
And if the underlying records raise additional questions, those questions deserve answers too.
But nobody gets to fill the holes in the record with assumptions.
Not us.
Not the courthouse.
Not the government.
The paperwork gets to speak first.
And right now, the paperwork tells us there was a 2003 aggravated-DWI case against Robyn Simms that ended in dismissal for no prosecution.
It tells us Emilio Chavez later became her husband, according to the 2014 divorce docket.
It tells us Chavez subsequently became a judge.
It tells us the New Mexico Supreme Court later formally reprimanded him for professional-conduct violations arising from his use of investigative subpoenas while he was a prosecutor.
What it doesn’t tell us yet is why the Simms DWI case died.
That’s the next document we need.
And that’s exactly where the investigation goes next.
DOCUMENTED SOURCES
New Mexico Courts — Case M-53-DR-200300112
State of New Mexico v. Robyn Simms. Taos Magistrate Court. 2003 DWI case. The docket supplied for this report identifies the aggravated-DWI charge and the March 17, 2004 “Dismissed – No Prosecution” disposition.
New Mexico Courts — Case D-820-DM-201400162
Emilio Chavez v. Robyn Simms. Taos District Court. 2014 dissolution-of-marriage proceeding. The docket identifies Chavez as petitioner and Simms as respondent.
New Mexico Supreme Court — In re Chavez, No. S-1-SC-35469 (Feb. 6, 2017)
The Supreme Court found that Emilio Jacob Chavez violated Rule 16-404(A) NMRA concerning investigative subpoenas and imposed a deferred formal reprimand.
New Mexico Court of Appeals — In re Emilio Chavez, No. 34,466 (June 16, 2016)
The appellate court addressed a contempt proceeding arising from Chavez’s conduct as a Taos County deputy district attorney and reversed the contempt citation on due-process grounds.
13th Judicial District Attorney’s Office
Current official staff listing identifies Robyn Simms as Deputy District Attorney, Valencia County, with the office based in Belen and mailing address in Los Lunas.
13th Judicial District Attorney’s Office — “Crime. Community. Commitment.”
Published under Robyn Simms’ name in her capacity as Valencia County Deputy District Attorney.
New Mexico State Bar Bulletin / Supreme Court opinion
The published disciplinary opinion details the subpoena investigation involving Chavez and Donald Gallegos, including the finding that Chavez issued at least 94 investigative subpoenas during 2012-2013.
