State v. Montano, 6934
| Decision Date | 21 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 6934,6934 |
| Citation | 69 N.M. 332,1961 NMSC 174,367 P.2d 95 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel MONTANO, also known as 'Freckles,' Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
George A. Graham, Jr., Santa Fe, for appellant.
Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., F. Harlan Flint and Norman S. Thayer, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant and one Frank Quintana were jointly charged in an information containing two counts. Count I charged robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, a gun; Count II charged grand larceny. The accused, however, were tried separately, and Frank Quintana was convicted on both counts. From the judgment imposing sentences, he appealed. Upon review in this court, the conviction was sustained, State v. Quintana, 69 N.M. 51, 364 P.2d 120, however, the sentence imposed for grand larceny was vacated. Appellant was laso convicted on both counts and he has likewise appealed from the judgment imposing sentences upon him. The cases in a large measure involve common questions of law and fact. It is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss the claimed errors in this case in detail.
Three questions are posed for a reversal of the judgment, (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, (2) failure to establish the corpus delicti, and (3) double jeopardy due to the separate sentences imposed.
Under his first point, appellant's only complaint is that the evidence failed to identify him as a participant in the commission of the alleged offenses. There is no basis for this complaint. This specific question was raised by Quintana, and the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to him was reviewed at great length in the opinion in that case. Our review of the record in this case discloses that the identity of the appellant was established beyond a reasonable doubt by the same clear and convincing testimony that established the identity of his accomplice, Quintana.
It is contended that the state failed to establish the corpus delicti. This contention is based on the theory that there was no proof the gun used in effecting the robbery was loaded. This contention is far fetched. 'Deadly weapons * * * shall be construed to mean * * * any kind or class of pistol or gun * * * or any other deadly weapons with which dangerous wounds can be inflicted.' Section 40-17-7, 1953 Comp. Appellant was convicted under Section 40-42-2, 1953 Comp., and the gist of the offense is the assault and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McAfee
...there has been more than one offense. See State v. Allen, 59 N.M. 139, 280 P.2d 298 (1955); State v. Quintana, supra; State v. Montano, 69 N.M. 332, 367 P.2d 95 (1961); State v. Blackwell, supra; State v. Martinez, 77 N.M. 745, 427 P.2d 260, opinion issued May 8, 1967. In Quintana it was he......
-
Baker v. United States
...was unloaded. See e. g., State v. Ashland, 259 Iowa 728, 145 N.W.2d 910; Hayes v. State, 211 Md. 111, 126 A.2d 576 (1956); State v. Montano, 69 N.M. 332, 367 P.2d 95; Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 1412, 1426-28 We believe that Congress did not envision putting on the government so stringent a burden ......
-
State v. Blackwell
...of each offense. Accordingly, they were susceptible of only one punishment. State v. Quintana, 69 N.M. 51, 364 P.2d 120; State v. Montano, 69 N.M. 332, 367 P.2d 95. Compare, Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d The sentence imposed departed from the limits provided......
-
State v. Peke
...the latter eight would have been included within count one. See, State v. Quintana, 1961, 69 N.M. 51, 364 P.2d 120; and State v. Montano, 1961, 69 N.M. 332, 367 P.2d 95. However, it is equally apparent that if the charge had originally been made as proposed by the amendment, the defendant c......