Trujillo v. State

New Mexico Supreme Court

Trujillo v. State

568 P.2d 192, 90 N.M. 666

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 22, 1977

DocketNo. 11466

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 568 P.2d 192 (Trujillo 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

Trujillo v. State, 568 P.2d 192, 90 N.M. 666 (N.M. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

SOSA, Justice.

Defendant Luciano Trujillo was convicted by a jury of various offenses in district court. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. We granted certiorari.

On appeal defendant argues, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals improperly summarily affirmed his conviction because his memorandum in opposition to summary disposition was untimely filed. The facts indicated that defendant’s appeal was assigned to the summary calendar on May 3, 1977. Notice thereof was received on May 5 by defendant’s counsel. The memorandum in opposition was mailed from Albuquerque on May 13 (Friday) and filed in the Court of Appeals on Monday, May 16. Defendant argues that in this case N.M.R. Crim. App. 302(b) [§ 41-23A-302(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975) ] allows an extra three days for mailing. Rule 302(b) states: “Additional Time After Service by Mail. Whenever a party is required or permitted to do an act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon him and the paper is served by mail, three [3] days shall be added to the prescribed period.” Defendant’s memorandum was not untimely filed.

The Court of Appeals’ summary affirmance is reversed with directions to consider the issues raised on appeal.

McMANUS, C. J., and EASLEY, PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION

SOSA, Justice.

Defendant Luciano Trujillo was convicted by a jury of various offenses in district court. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. We granted certiorari.

On appeal defendant argues, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals improperly summarily affirmed his conviction because his memorandum in opposition to summary disposition was untimely filed. The facts indicated that defendant’s appeal was assigned to the summary calendar on May 3, 1977. Notice thereof was received on May 5 by defendant’s counsel. The memorandum in opposition was mailed from Albuquerque on May 13 (Friday) and filed in the Court of Appeals on Monday, May 16. Defendant argues that in this case N.M.R. Crim. App. 302(b) [§ 41-23A-302(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975) ] allows an extra three days for mailing. Rule 302(b) states: “Additional Time After Service by Mail. Whenever a party is required or permitted to do an act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon him and the paper is served by mail, three [3] days shall be added to the prescribed period.” Defendant’s memorandum was not untimely filed.

The Court of Appeals’ summary affirmance is reversed with directions to consider the issues raised on appeal.

McMANUS, C. J., and EASLEY, PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 P.2d 192, 90 N.M. 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trujillo-v-state-nm-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack