State v. Clements

New Mexico Supreme Court

State v. Clements

497 P.2d 975, 83 N.M. 764

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedMay 26, 1972

DocketNo. 9345

StatusPublished

This text of 497 P.2d 975 (State v. Clements) 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. Clements, 497 P.2d 975, 83 N.M. 764 (N.M. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

OMAN, Justice.

This cause is before us on an attempt by defendant to appeal from an order of the district court denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Subsequent to the filing of the brief in chief in this court, the parties entered into and filed a written stipulation that the brief in chief could be considered by us as a petition to this court for a writ of habeas corpus. This stipulation was denied, and the case subsequently came on for hearing on the purported appeal.

Apparently the effort, to have us consider the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, was prompted by a. realization of the parties that petitioner has no right of appeal to this court from the denial by the district court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. State v. Sisk, 79 N.M. 167, 441 P.2d 207 (1968); In re Forest, 45 N.M. 204, 113 P.2d 582 (1941); Supreme Court Rule 5(2) [§ 21-2-1(5) (2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970)].

The appeal should be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and McMANUS, J., concur.

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

OPINION

OMAN, Justice.

This cause is before us on an attempt by defendant to appeal from an order of the district court denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Subsequent to the filing of the brief in chief in this court, the parties entered into and filed a written stipulation that the brief in chief could be considered by us as a petition to this court for a writ of habeas corpus. This stipulation was denied, and the case subsequently came on for hearing on the purported appeal.

Apparently the effort, to have us consider the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, was prompted by a. realization of the parties that petitioner has no right of appeal to this court from the denial by the district court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. State v. Sisk, 79 N.M. 167, 441 P.2d 207 (1968); In re Forest, 45 N.M. 204, 113 P.2d 582 (1941); Supreme Court Rule 5(2) [§ 21-2-1(5) (2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970)].

The appeal should be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and McMANUS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 P.2d 975, 83 N.M. 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clements-nm-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack