TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Montoya

STATE of New Mexico v. Reynaldo MONTOYA

State v. Montoya, 443 P.2d 743 (N.M. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New Mexico Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1968
Docket
No. 8599
Judges
Carmody, Chavez, Compton, Moise, Noble
Citations
443 P.2d 74379 N.M. 353

Opinion of the Court — Compton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION COMPTON, Justice. The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the New Mexico State Penitentiary. Upon appeal, the judgment imposing sentence was affirmed. State v. Montoya, 72 N.M. 178 , 381 P.2d 963 .

Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 93, § 21-1-1 (93), N.M.S.A.1953 (1967 P.S.), appellant moved for correction of the judgment so as to allow credit for the time spent in confinement awaiting the outcome of his appeal. The motion was denied, and he appeals from the order denying his motion.

The pertinent statute, § 40A-29-24, N.M. S.A.1953 (1967 P.S.), reads:

“A person convicted of a felony in the district court and held in official confinement while awaiting the outcome of an appeal, writ of error to, or writ of certiorari from, a state or federal appellate court, or prior to his release as a result of post-conviction proceedings or habeas corpus, shall be given credit for the period spent in confinement against any sentence finally imposed for that offense.”

Appellant was committed to the penitentiary on April 28, 1961, and the judgment affirming his sentence was entered July 10, 1963. He now argues that the statute should be given retroactive application. There is no basis for this argument; the question has already been settled. The statute was enacted in 1967 as Section 1, Chapter 221, and operates prospectively only. State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 9 , 439 P.2d 226 . See also State v. Padilla, (Ct.App.) 78 N.M. 702 , 437 P.2d 163 , where Section 2 of the Act, § 40A-29-25, N.M.S.A. 1953 (1967 P.S.), was likewise held to operate prospectively only.

The order should be affirmed, and it is so ordered. CHAVEZ, C. J., and NOBLE, MOISE and CARMODY, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 11974: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Kapperman522 P.2d 657 (Cal. 1974)
  2. Sullivan v. Cupp462 P.2d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1969)

Most recent

  1. In re Kapperman522 P.2d 657 (Cal. 1974)
  2. Sullivan v. Cupp462 P.2d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1969)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Padilla, 437 P.2d 163 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968) 18
State v. Sedillo, 439 P.2d 226 (N.M. 1968) 10
State v. Montoya, 381 P.2d 963 (N.M. 1963) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list