State v. Peavler
| Decision Date | 02 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 10454 and 10493,s. 10454 and 10493 |
| Citation | 537 P.2d 1387,1975 NMSC 35,88 N.M. 125 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Ronald PEAVLER and John Casaus, Respondents. Ronald PEAVLER and John Casaus, Petitioners, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
The District Court of the Second Judicial District dismissed an indictment charging possession, unlawful distribution and conspiracy to distribute marijuana upon motion of the defendants. The State appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the indictment but directed the district court to see to it that a preliminary hearing be granted the defendants in magistrate court. State v. Peavler and Casaus, (filed April 9, 1975), 87 N.M. 443, 535 P.2d 650 (Ct.App.1975). We refer to the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals for a statement of the procedural background of the case.
The State petitioned for certiorari which we granted. We now reverse the Court of Appeals and the district court.
We agree with the opinion of the majority of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held that the prosecutor's failure to proceed under the Rules Governing Criminal Actions in Magistrate Court is of no moment and that the failure of the district attorney to appear for the preliminary hearing cannot be elevated to a deprivation of any constitutional right. However, we are in fundamental disagreement with the ultimate result of the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals and with the reasoning by which it was reached.
The Court of Appeals reasoned and we agree that the dismissal of a felony charge by a magistrate does not result in an acquittal because the magistrate court has no jurisdiction to try felony charges. § 36--3--4, N.M.S.A., 1953 (Supp.1973). Consequently, a subsequent indictment is not barred even if the magistrate determines in a preliminary hearing that there is no probable cause to bind over for trial in the district court. United States v. Kysar, 459 F.2d 422 (10th Cir. 1972). Moreover, since the magistrate court has no jurisdiction to try felony charges, no double jeopardy problem can arise.
We also agree that the State can choose whether to proceed by indictment or information. State v. Burk, 82 N.M. 466, 483 P.2d 940 (Ct.App.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 955, 92 S.Ct. 309, 30 L.Ed.2d 271 (1971). If the State chooses to proceed by indictment, the defendant has no right to a preliminary hearing. N.M. Const. art. II, § 14. This is true despite the fact that proceedings against the defendant are initiated by a criminal complaint in magistrate court. State v. Ergenbright, 84 N.M. 662, 506 P.2d 1209 (1973).
The Court of Appeals, however, granted the defendants a preliminary hearing, presumably because the State had not brought an indictment within the time limits set forth in N.M.R.Crim.P. 20. 1 This is clearly error. Rule 20 only applies to preliminary hearings, not to indictments.
Therefore, when the magistrate discharged the criminal complaint, any rights the defendants had to a preliminary hearing were extinguished. State v. Burk, supra. The slate was clean. A subsequent indictment would be valid and also timely if brought within the statute of limitations.
The Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Magistrate Courts effective October 1, 1974, were not in force when this case arose. N.M.R.Crim.P. for Magistrate Courts 15(d) provides in part:
'* * *. Failure to comply with the time limits set forth in this paragraph shall not affect the validity of any indictment for the same criminal offense.'
This rule codifies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stockwell v. State
...111 Ariz. 38, 523 P.2d 66 (1974); State v. Elling, 19 Ariz.App. 317, 506 P.2d 1102 (1973); People v. Uhlemann, supra ; State v. Peavler, 88 N.M. 125, 537 P.2d 1387 (1975); Simpson v. Sheriff, Clark County, 86 Nev. 803, 476 P.2d 957 (1970). Like the federal government and our sister states, ......
-
State v. Benedict
...evidence. See State v. Chavez , 1979-NMCA-075, ¶ 20, 93 N.M. 270, 599 P.2d 1067 ; see also State v. Peavler , 1975-NMSC-035, ¶ 8, 88 N.M. 125, 537 P.2d 1387 ; State v. Burk , 1971-NMCA-018, ¶¶ 2-3, 82 N.M. 466, 483 P.2d ...
-
State Of N.M. v. Gallegos
...in magistrate court or seek an indictment, whether or not a complaint is initially filed in magistrate court. State v. Peavler, 88 N.M. 125, 126, 537 P.2d 1387, 1388 (1975). Defendant acknowledges that generally the period during which charges are dropped in magistrate court and later refil......
-
State v. Hamilton
...In sum, jurisdiction is essential before jeopardy attaches. State v. Mahlandt, 231 Kan. 665, 647 P.2d 1307 (1982). See State v. Peavler, 88 N.M. 125, 537 P.2d 1387 (1975); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512 (1966). Cf. Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 447 P.2d 279 Under the facts befo......