Blea v. Cox
Decision Date | 28 June 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 7902,7902 |
Citation | 75 N.M. 265,1965 NMSC 70,403 P.2d 701 |
Parties | Danny P. BLEA, Petitioner, v. Harold A. COX, Warden of the New Mexico State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Edward T. Johnson, Santa Fe, for petitioner.
Harry S. Connelly, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks habeas corpus because of the failure of the trial court to advise petitioner, an indigent person, of his right to counsel or to furnish counsel at a hearing held seeking revocation of a suspended sentence.
Was there a denial of due process in the proceeding wherein the sentence previously imposed and suspended was invoked?
On February 22, 1960, petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, and was sentenced to a term of not less than two years nor more than ten years in the penitentiary. The sentence was suspended during petitioner's good behavior. At his arraignment and sentence, petitioner was represented by counsel.
On December 16, 1960, a motion was made by the district attorney that the suspension be revoked. After hearing, at which petitioner was not represented by counsel or advised of any rights in connection therewith, the court continued petitioner under the suspended sentence on an additional condition that he obtain treatment at the Federal Narcotics Center in Fort Worth, Texas, and upon release to be on probation.
Again, on December 1, 1961, the district attorney moved for the revocation of the suspended sentence and the commitment of petitioner to the penitentiary. At the hearing, petitioner was not represented by counsel. Neither was he advised of his right to be represented by counsel. He was indigent, and did not intelligently waive his right to counsel.
As long ago as 1917, in Ex parte Lucero, 23 N.M. 433, 168 P. 713, L.R.A. 1918C, 549, this court passed on the necessity of preserving constitutional guaranties in hearings seeking to revoke the suspension of a sentence. The record in that case disclosed that the defendant was not present in person or by counsel when suspension of his sentence was revoked and commitment issued. We quote from the opinion in that case:
More recently, in State v. Peoples, 69 N.M. 106, 364 P.2d 359, we reaffirmed the rule. In that case, where defendant denied she was the same person as had been charged with a new offense which was the basis for seeking revocation, and was demanding a jury trial to determine that fact, we said:
Aside from the right guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cole v. Holliday
...substantial rights are materially affected. In support hereof see Hewett v. North Carolina, supra. Also in point is Blea v. Cox, 75 N.M. 265, 403 P.2d 701, 702--703, where the court said: 'As long ago as 1917, in Ex parte Lucero, 23 N.M. 433, 168 P. 713, L.R.A.1918C, 549, this court passed ......
-
Kelly v. State
...(1956).See Hoffman v. State, 404 P.2d 644 (Alaska 1965); Williams v. Commonwealth, 350 Mass. 732, 216 N.E.2d 779 (1966); Blea v. Cox, 75 N.M. 265, 403 P.2d 701 (1965).See also this writer's original dissent in Crawford v. State, 435 S.W.2d 148, 150 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).Cf. Baxstrom v. Herold, ......
-
State v. Leon
...where the notice of appeal is untimely filed. We begin with three cases relevant to our decision. {10} In Blea v. Cox, 75 N.M. 265, 267, 403 P.2d 701, 703 (1965) (per curiam), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mendoza, 91 N.M. 688, 579 P.2d 1255 (1978), our Supreme Court held that a de......
-
Shum v. Fogliani
...has ruled otherwise, expressing the view that due process requires that an indigent probationer be furnished counsel. Blea v. Cox, 75 N.M. 265, 403 P.2d 701 (1965). Though that point of view has appeal, we cannot accept it. Probation is a privilege legislatively given, and without constitut......