City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 13 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 381,381 |
| Citation | 466 P.2d 118,81 N.M. 272,1970 NMCA 23 |
| Parties | CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rose SANCHEZ and Vickie Padilla, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Defendants pleaded guilty, in Municipal Court, to petty larceny and were sentenced. Subsequently, they appealed to the district court. The City moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that a plea of guilty does not entitle defendants to appeal. The district court granted the City's motion to dismiss and defendants appeal that ruling.
We reverse for reasons hereinafter stated.
Section 21--10--1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969) states:
'All appeals from inferior tribunals to the district courts shall be tried anew in said courts on their merits, as if no trial had been had below, except as otherwise provided by law.'
The question presented is whether one who pleads guilty in an inferior court may appeal to the district court.
The City argues that '(t)o allow an appeal to be taken after a guilty plea * * * would seriously impede or delay the orderly and speedy administration of justice in both the inferior and superior courts.' With this we do not agree, but assuming it is correct, then this is a situation which calls for legislative therapy and not judicial surgery.
Here the framers of our Constitution saw fit to provide for de novo appeals in all cases from the probate courts and other inferior courts by Art. VI, § 27 of the New Mexico Constitution which reads:
They imposed no condition except a proviso that the Legislature could, by law, change the right granted. We can find no such change nor have we been cited to any. Section 21--10--1, supra, makes no change to support the City's position. The terms of that section are clear and without limitation.
The defendants have a right of appeal to the district court by the plain terms of § 21--10--1, supra. This right of appeal is the right to have the case disposed of upon its merits, de novo, in the district court. Our statute vests the district court with coordinate jurisdiction to proceed in the case as if it had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ball
...art. VI, Section 27. In concluding that Subsection 23-8A-6(C) and Metro.Rule 71(a) unconstitutionally In City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 81 N.M. 272, 466 P.2d 118 (Ct.App.1970), the court held that defendants who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in municipal court were entitled to appe......
-
Segura v. J.W. Drilling, Inc.
...¶ 7, 137 N.M. 103, 107 P.3d 543 (“We will not rewrite a statute.”) ; City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 1970–NMCA–023, ¶ 5, 81 N.M. 272, 466 P.2d 118 (“[T]his is a situation which calls for legislative therapy and not judicial surgery.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Ball, 1986–NMSC–......
-
State v. Russell
...and not judicial surgery.' " See State v. Gardner, 112 N.M. 280, 814 P.2d 458 (Ct.App.1991) (quoting City of Albuquerque v. Sanchez, 81 N.M. 272, 273, 466 P.2d 118, 119 (Ct.App.1970), overruled on other grounds, State v. Ball, 104 N.M. 176, 718 P.2d 686 Defendant mentions in his reply brief......
- State v. Henderson