State v. Tafoya

New Mexico Court of Appeals

State v. Tafoya

472 P.2d 651, 81 N.M. 686

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 2, 1970

Docket483

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 472 P.2d 651 (State v. Tafoya) 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

State v. Tafoya, 472 P.2d 651, 81 N.M. 686 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

WOOD, Judge.

Defendant moved for post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969). The claims made in the motion were denied without a hearing. We do not review those claims because none stated a basis for post-conviction relief; defendant does not contend otherwise. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with the motion and in denying the motion without a hearing. Since the motion stated no basis for relief, appointment of counsel was not required, State v. Tapia, 80 N.M. 477, 457 P.2d 996 (Ct.App.1969), and the trial court properly denied the motion without a hearing. Nance v. State, 80 N.M. 123, 452 P.2d 192 (Ct.App.1969).

Defendant also makes claims concerning an asserted waiver of proof and double jeopardy. They are raised for the first time in the appeal. Not having been presented to the trial court they will not be considered. State v. Lujan, 79 N.M. 525, 445 P.2d 749 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Sharp, 79 N.M. 498, 445 P.2d 101 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Knerr, 79 N.M. 133, 440 P.2d 808 (Ct.App.1968).

The order denying relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.

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

OPINION

WOOD, Judge.

Defendant moved for post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969). The claims made in the motion were denied without a hearing. We do not review those claims because none stated a basis for post-conviction relief; defendant does not contend otherwise. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with the motion and in denying the motion without a hearing. Since the motion stated no basis for relief, appointment of counsel was not required, State v. Tapia, 80 N.M. 477, 457 P.2d 996 (Ct.App.1969), and the trial court properly denied the motion without a hearing. Nance v. State, 80 N.M. 123, 452 P.2d 192 (Ct.App.1969).

Defendant also makes claims concerning an asserted waiver of proof and double jeopardy. They are raised for the first time in the appeal. Not having been presented to the trial court they will not be considered. State v. Lujan, 79 N.M. 525, 445 P.2d 749 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Sharp, 79 N.M. 498, 445 P.2d 101 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Knerr, 79 N.M. 133, 440 P.2d 808 (Ct.App.1968).

The order denying relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 P.2d 651, 81 N.M. 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tafoya-nmctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack