State v. Brewer

New Mexico Supreme Court

State v. Brewer

427 P.2d 272, 77 N.M. 763

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedMay 8, 1967

DocketNo. 8184

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 427 P.2d 272 (State v. Brewer) 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

State v. Brewer, 427 P.2d 272, 77 N.M. 763 (N.M. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.

In March, 1966, Jesse R. Brewer filed a motion permitted under § 21-1-1(93), N.M. S.A., 1953, to vacate the judgment and sentence previously imposed in the district court at Tucumcari. After a hearing the sentencing court entered an order denying the motion. This appeal followed.

The appellant seeks a reversal of the order of the lower court on the ground that the appellant had not been fully advised of the legal effect of his prior plea of guilty in the court of the committing magistrate. The question presented involves neither jurisdiction nor fundamental error. The objection was not included in the motion presented to the sentencing court and it is now sought to be raised for the first time. The many decisions touching this procedure need not be listed here. The following references will suffice: § 21-2-1(20) (1), N.M.S.A., 1953; Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717, 398 P.2d 49. No ruling on the point having been invoked in the sentencing court, none will be made here.

The order appealed from will be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CHAVEZ, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur.

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

OPINION

HENSLEY, Jr., Chief Judge, Court of Appeals.

In March, 1966, Jesse R. Brewer filed a motion permitted under § 21-1-1(93), N.M. S.A., 1953, to vacate the judgment and sentence previously imposed in the district court at Tucumcari. After a hearing the sentencing court entered an order denying the motion. This appeal followed.

The appellant seeks a reversal of the order of the lower court on the ground that the appellant had not been fully advised of the legal effect of his prior plea of guilty in the court of the committing magistrate. The question presented involves neither jurisdiction nor fundamental error. The objection was not included in the motion presented to the sentencing court and it is now sought to be raised for the first time. The many decisions touching this procedure need not be listed here. The following references will suffice: § 21-2-1(20) (1), N.M.S.A., 1953; Batchelor v. Charley, 74 N.M. 717, 398 P.2d 49. No ruling on the point having been invoked in the sentencing court, none will be made here.

The order appealed from will be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CHAVEZ, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 P.2d 272, 77 N.M. 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brewer-nm-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack