Adkins v. State

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Adkins v. State

484 P.2d 358, 82 N.M. 516

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1971

DocketNo. 575

StatusPublished

This text of 484 P.2d 358 (Adkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adkins v. State, 484 P.2d 358, 82 N.M. 516 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1(93), N.M. S.A. 1953, (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970)] was denied after a hearing on the motion. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in finding that at the original trial he (1) was adequately advised of his rights, (2) was adequately represented by counsel, (3) knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and (4) voluntarily entered his guilty plea.

We affirm.

On appeal we view the evidence most favorable to support the findings. State v. Moser, 80 N.M. 404, 456 P.2d 878 (1969). Findings supported by substantial evidence are conclusive on appeal. State v. Wheeler, 81 N.M. 758, 473 P.2d 372 (Ct.App.1970). The findings of the trial court regarding the Rule 93 motion are sustainable by the record.

Independent of that hearing the record reveals that at the original proceeding prior to accepting the guilty plea, the trial judge solicitously explained to defendant his rights and explored the voluntariness of the plea, to the extent of not accepting a plea of guilty to the second count of the indictment. Further, when defendant stated he did not want an attorney, the trial judge insisted that he consult one. An attorney was provided by the court and he consulted with the defendant. Defendant, after consultation with an attorney, stated he did not.want an attorney. The record of that proceeding is such that a denial of petitioner’s motion without a hearing would have been sustained. Compare State v. King, 82 N.M. 200, 477 P.2d 1015 (Ct.App.1970); State v. Hansen, 79 N.M. 203, 441 P.2d 500 (Ct.App.1968).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIES S, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1(93), N.M. S.A. 1953, (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970)] was denied after a hearing on the motion. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in finding that at the original trial he (1) was adequately advised of his rights, (2) was adequately represented by counsel, (3) knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and (4) voluntarily entered his guilty plea.

We affirm.

On appeal we view the evidence most favorable to support the findings. State v. Moser, 80 N.M. 404, 456 P.2d 878 (1969). Findings supported by substantial evidence are conclusive on appeal. State v. Wheeler, 81 N.M. 758, 473 P.2d 372 (Ct.App.1970). The findings of the trial court regarding the Rule 93 motion are sustainable by the record.

Independent of that hearing the record reveals that at the original proceeding prior to accepting the guilty plea, the trial judge solicitously explained to defendant his rights and explored the voluntariness of the plea, to the extent of not accepting a plea of guilty to the second count of the indictment. Further, when defendant stated he did not want an attorney, the trial judge insisted that he consult one. An attorney was provided by the court and he consulted with the defendant. Defendant, after consultation with an attorney, stated he did not.want an attorney. The record of that proceeding is such that a denial of petitioner’s motion without a hearing would have been sustained. Compare State v. King, 82 N.M. 200, 477 P.2d 1015 (Ct.App.1970); State v. Hansen, 79 N.M. 203, 441 P.2d 500 (Ct.App.1968).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIES S, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 P.2d 358, 82 N.M. 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-state-nmctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack