Melon v. State

New Mexico Supreme Court

Melon v. State

568 P.2d 1233, 90 N.M. 787

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 25, 1977

Docket11560

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 568 P.2d 1233 (Melon v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melon v. State, 568 P.2d 1233, 90 N.M. 787 (N.M. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

This matter coming on for consideration by the Court upon petition for writ of certiorari, and the Court having considered said petition and being sufficiently advised in the premises;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied. The Court agrees with the statement and conclusion of the Court of Appeals that in Eller v. State, 90 N.M. 552, 566 P.2d 101, this Court did not intend to abandon its prior decisions which hold that new issues may not be raised on appeal, regardless of whether they have been listed in the docketing statement.

This Court in Eller, supra, limited its application to the “[state] of the record in this (Eller) case,” and to exceptions in extreme cases under the rules announced in Olguin v. State, 90 N.M. 303, 563 P.2d 97 (1977); Linam v. State, 90 N.M. 302, 563 P.2d 96 (1977); and Vigil v. State, 89 N.M. 601, 555 P.2d 901 (1976).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Record in Cause No. 3101 be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.

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

This matter coming on for consideration by the Court upon petition for writ of certiorari, and the Court having considered said petition and being sufficiently advised in the premises;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied. The Court agrees with the statement and conclusion of the Court of Appeals that in Eller v. State, 90 N.M. 552, 566 P.2d 101, this Court did not intend to abandon its prior decisions which hold that new issues may not be raised on appeal, regardless of whether they have been listed in the docketing statement.

This Court in Eller, supra, limited its application to the “[state] of the record in this (Eller) case,” and to exceptions in extreme cases under the rules announced in Olguin v. State, 90 N.M. 303, 563 P.2d 97 (1977); Linam v. State, 90 N.M. 302, 563 P.2d 96 (1977); and Vigil v. State, 89 N.M. 601, 555 P.2d 901 (1976).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Record in Cause No. 3101 be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 P.2d 1233, 90 N.M. 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melon-v-state-nm-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack