State v. Lopez
Decision Date | 10 June 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 8406,8406 |
Citation | 441 P.2d 764,79 N.M. 235,1968 NMSC 98 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Petitioner appeals from an order denying him relief as sought in a petition filed pursuant to Rule 93 (§ 21--1--1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953).
, the record discloses that the sentence now being attacked was entered October 29, 1965, and was for not less than one year nor more than five years, imposed on a plea of guilty to a charge of escaping from jail, contrary to § 40A--22--8, N.M.S.A. 1953, which reads:
'Escape from jail consists of any person who shall have been lawfully committed to any jail, escaping or attempting to escape from such jail.
'Whoever commits escape from jail is guilty of a fourth degree felony.'
It appears that on September 27, 1965, while petitioner was serving a sentence in jail for violation of municipal ordinances against drunkenness and escape from jail, he was taken to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous conducted for city jail inmates in the police magistrate's court room in the same building where the jail is located, and that when the meeting was over petitioner and other prisoners left the building. Petitioner returned five hours later. The charge under § 40A--22--8 was then filed. Petitioner waived counsel and a preliminary hearing in justice of the peace court and was bound over to the district court for trial. Upon appearing in district court, the following occurred:
Thereafter, petitioner appeared in court and was given the sentence from which he seeks relief. The trial court held a hearing at which petitioner was present with counsel, and thereupon made findings and conclusions and thereafter an order denying relief was entered. This appeal followed.
Petitioner's first point asserts that his incarceration on a charge of escaping from jail is unlawful because his detention in jail was in violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Briefly stated, it is petitioner's position that since he is a chronic alcoholic, confining him as a violator of criminal ordinances prohibiting drunkenness amounted to deprivation of his constitutional rights because chronic alcoholism is a sickness and cannot be punished as a crime. He relies on Robinson v. State of California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962). That case clearly held that a statute making drug addiction a crime and providing imprisonment for violation inflicts cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Reliance is also placed on Easter v. District of Columbia, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 361 F.2d 50 (1966), where it was held that chronic alcoholism which deprives a defendant of volition is a defense to a charge of drunkenness. Driver v. Hinnant, 356 F.2d 761 (4th Cir. 1966), is likewise relied on. This case holds that under the rationale of Robinson, supra, the petitioner could not be held to have violated a statute making public drunkenness a crime where he asserted a defense of chronic alcoholism, and he was accordingly entitled to release under a writ of habeas corpus.
We do not find it necessary to consider whether there is any merit to the argument that the ordinance was unconstitutionally applied. The general rule would appear to be that so long as the commitment to custody is valid on its face, it is no defense to a charge of escaping jail that the incarceration was allegedly unconstitutionally law which was allegedly unconstitutionally applied. See People ex rel. Haines v. Hunt, 229 App.Div. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 105 (1930); Kelley v. Meyers, 124 Or. 322, 263 P. 903, 56 A.L.R. 661 (1928); Annot., 70 A.L.R.2d 1430, 1452 (1960).
Accordingly, petitioner's first point is ruled against him. This is done without reference to the fact that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gonzales
...400 N.E.2d 854, 857 n. 2 (1980) and cases cited therein; People v. Holt, 54 Mich.App. 60, 220 N.W.2d 205, 206 (1974); State v. Lopez, 79 N.M. 235, 441 P.2d 764 (1968); People ex rel. Haines v. Hunt, 229 A.D. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 105 (1930); State v. Speaks, 17 Ohio App.2d 129, 244 N.E.2d 799, 80......
-
State v. Bloom
...we have heretofore held the arrests were lawful. Thus, the defendants' convictions of escape from custody are affirmed. State v. Lopez, 79 N.M. 235, 441 P.2d 764 (1968); State v. Martinez, 79 N.M. 232, 441 P.2d 761 Having held the seizure illegal we do not reach defendants' third issue rela......
-
State v. Handran
...cf. Harmon v. State, 222 Ga. 845, 152 S.E.2d 861 (1967); Henderson v. State, 198 Kan. 655, 426 P.2d 92 (1967); State v. Lopez, 79 N.M. 235, 441 P.2d 764 (1968); State v. Martinez, 79 N.M. 232, 441 P.2d 761 (1968); Kelley v. Meyers, 124 Or. 322, 263 P. 903, 56 A.L.R. 661 (1928); see generall......
-
State v. Paniagua
...was convicted or charged does not justify escape from imprisonment. Eaton v. State , 302 A.2d 588 (Me. 1973) ; State v. Lopez , 79 N.M. 235, 441 P.2d 764, 766 (1968) ; People ex rel. Haines v. Hunt , 229 A.D. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 105 (1930) ; Kelley v. Meyers , 124 Or. 322, 263 P. 903 (1928) ; W......