of guilty,” and because mandamus lies to prevent unconstitutional conduct by state officers, he further claims he has a right to a writ of mandamus in this case. See State ex rel. Taylor v. Johnson, 1998-NMSC-015, ¶ 18, 125 N.M. 343, 961 P.2d 768; State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 120 N.M. 562, 569, 904 P.2d 11, 18 (1995). {13} We disagree because, after considering the respective interests involved and the flexibility of the due process response to them, we do not believe that the police officers must advise drivers of all the various possibilities that could happen if one went to court, e.g., the case may be dismissed because the officer does not show up, the judge may be lenient, the judge may give probation, etc. Cf. Jaouad v. City of New York, 4 F.Supp.2d 311, 313 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (<HOLDING>); City of Hollywood v. Miller, 471 So.2d 655,
holding that once a sentence is imposed it is a valid final judgment until it is reversed or vacated holding that it is not a violation of due process not to inform ticket recipients of their right to have defective tickets vacated when they are informed that they can pay the ticket or utilize procedures to challenge it holding it was not beyond the agencys jurisdiction to set requirements for companys notices sent in the future to inform recipients that they have won prizes holding that it is not holding that notice on ticket that required payment of fine or contacting traffic bureau but did not specifically set forth right to hearing did not violate due process because the elements required to be included in the notice are to be tailored to the circumstances of the case and depend upon an appropriate accommodation of the competing private and governmental interests involved internal quotation marks and citation omitted