State v. McCraw
| Decision Date | 31 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5891,5891 |
| Citation | 1955 NMSC 50,284 P.2d 670,59 N.M. 348 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack P. McCRAW, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
W. S. Martin, Jr., Lovington, for appellant.
Richard H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Standley, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. H. Burttram, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
On June 11, 1953, the appellant was convicted of the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and was sentenced to serve not less than two and one-half years, nor more than three years in the penitentiary. On July 22, 1953, an information charging him with having been convicted of four felonies in other states previous to his conviction in Lea county was filed. Thereafter, on June 17, 1954, an amended information was filed charging the conviction of appellant on four felony charges in other states, which, had they been committed in New Mexico, would have been felonies here.
Following the filing of the amended information the appellant filed his motion to quash it on various grounds. The motion was denied and after a verdict of guilty on all counts was found, the original sentence was vacated and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 41-16-3, 1953 Compilation; this appeal followed.
Only two points are relied upon for reversal here: First, that the provisions of our Habitual Criminal Act, Secs. 41-16-1 through 41-16-4, 1953 Compilation, do not apply to this appellant because of his claim the District Judge and District Attorney knew of his prior convictions at the time he was first sentenced; and, second, the failure to charge him as an habitual criminal when the prior convictions were known to the court and district attorney constituted a waiver of the right of the state to so charge him.
It is stipulated the District Attorney knew of the former convictions at the time of the original trial, but there is nothing in the record to indicate the trial judge knew of them and the state challenges the statement as to the latter.
The applicable sections of our statutes read:
Sec. 41-16-3, 1953 Compilation.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martinez
... ... Both cases dealt with the absence of standards. There is no absence of a standard as to whether our habitual offender statute should or should not be applied. The terms of our statute are mandatory. State [89 NM 731] ... v. McCraw, 59 N.M. 348, 284 P.2d 670 (1955); State v. Sedillo, supra ... Trial in Prison Clothing ... The parties are in agreement that at the trial of the habitual offender charge, defendant wore a shirt issued to him at the penitentiary. They also agree that Exhibit A is a picture of the ... ...
-
State v. Peters
...otherwise unauthorized by law must be acknowledged, as much as the fact that he cannot nullify a statute by ignoring it. State v. McCraw, 59 N.M. 348, 351, 284 P.2d 670. Submitted pro forma (with counsel's indication, 'lest any right of the appellant be prejudiced by counsel's failure to pr......
-
State v. Mayberry
...dismissal of the habitual offender charge because of filing delay. State v. Stout, 96 N.M. 29, 627 P.2d 871 (1981); State v. McCraw, 59 N.M. 348, 284 P.2d 670 (1955); § 31-18-19, The habitual offender charge, filed May 3, 1981, was tried June 4, 1981. Delay under R.Crim.Proc. 37 is not invo......
-
State v. Baldonado
...former conviction for felony was in state or out of state. The provisions of this act have been construed as mandatory. State v. McCraw, 59 N.M. 348, 284 P.2d 670 (1955). The object of the act is for the purpose of inhibiting repetition of criminal acts by individuals against the peace and ......