State v. Manlove

New Mexico Court of Appeals

State v. Manlove

1973 NMCA 109, 512 P.2d 1274, 85 N.M. 438

New Mexico Court of Appeals·Decided July 18, 1973·No. No. 1121·Published

Opinion

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

This is a Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1(93), N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4)] case, an appeal from denial of defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction and sentence set forth in State v. Manlove, 79 N.M. 189, 441 P.2d 229 (Ct.App.1968).

Defendant claims (1) there was a merger of offenses and he was improperly punished for three separate offenses; (2) the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury.

The matters urged for reversal are ones which have already been decided or should have been submitted to this court on the original appeal. State v. Sedillo, 84 N.M. 293, 502 P.2d 318 (Ct.App.1972).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

This is a Rule 93 [§ 21-1-1(93), N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4)] case, an appeal from denial of defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of conviction and sentence set forth in State v. Manlove, 79 N.M. 189, 441 P.2d 229 (Ct.App.1968).

Defendant claims (1) there was a merger of offenses and he was improperly punished for three separate offenses; (2) the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury.

The matters urged for reversal are ones which have already been decided or should have been submitted to this court on the original appeal. State v. Sedillo, 84 N.M. 293, 502 P.2d 318 (Ct.App.1972).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.

State v. Manlove, 1973 NMCA 109, 512 P.2d 1274, 85 N.M. 438 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

1973 NMCA 109 (State v. Manlove) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related