State v. Reyes
Decision Date | 27 October 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 66,66 |
Citation | 1967 NMCA 23,78 N.M. 527,433 P.2d 506 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy REYES, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Defendant appellant Jimmy Reyes has appealed from an order of the district court denying his motion for post conviction relief filed under Rule 93 (21--1--1(93), N.M.S.A., 1953).
The motion includes three grounds for relief all of which are re-asserted here. The denial of the motion by the trial court was upon the ground 'that all allegations contained therein are without merit.' In our opinion this disposition of the motion was correct.
Defendant was convicted of armed robbery in the district court of Curry County and sentence was imposed in accordance with the applicable statute. He first contends that the district court was without jurisdiction to try the cause and likewise lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence.
It is a fundamental rule that the burden of demonstrating want of jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting such want, particularly where the challenge is applied to a court exercising general jurisdiction as is the case here. The argument portion of defendant's brief as it relates to his challenge to jurisdiction states only the bald conclusion that the court lacked jurisdiction. No reason or ground is presented upon which defendant's conclusion is based.
Although we undertake to determine all appeals presented to us on the merits it is nevertheless incumbent upon appellant to affirmatively demonstrate what error, if any, it is contended was committed by the court below. The mere statement of the conclusion does not suffice to present a question for review. State v. Crouch, 77 N.M. 657, 427 P.2d 19 (1967).
The next question presented is whether § 14 of Article II of the New Mexico State Constitution permitting felonies to be charged by information violates either the Fifth Amendment requirement of a grand jury indictment or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The defendant acknowledges that the precise question presented here was settled in Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232, wherein the Supreme Court of the United States held, that the Fifth Amendment requirement for a grand jury indictment was not applicable to the states.
Defendant, however, argues that this court should nevertheless recognize that an accused has a fundamental right of indictment rather than being charged with a felony by information and we should so declare. We find no satisfactory reason to warrant such declaration.
The New Mexico Supreme Court has recently said that the provisions of Section 14, Article II of the New Mexico Constitution permitting the prosecution of a felony by information does not violate either the Fifth Amendment requirement of a grand jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lopez
...to support this contention. A mere statement of a conclusion does not suffice to present the question for review. State v. Reyes, 78 N.M. 527, 433 P.2d 506 (Ct.App.1968). Point D states there was error in refusing to grant a mistrial on the basis of one of the joror's having conversed with ......
-
State v. Barton
...of Appeals in State v. Williams, 78 N.M. 211, 430 P.2d 105 (1967); State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982 (1967); State v. Reyes, 78 N.M. 527, 433 P.2d 506 (1967). Defendant's next claim is that 'the trial court erred in not releasing defendant because he was held in solitary confinem......
-
State v. Cochran
...jury indictment. This contention is without merit. Hurtado v. California,110 U.S. 516, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232. See also State v. Reyes, 78 N.M. 527, 433 P.2d 506; State v. Williams, 78 N.M. 211, 430 P.2d 105; State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d The judgment should be affirmed. It is......
-
State v. Muise
...(1975); State v. Vaughn, 82 N.M. 310, 481 P.2d 98, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 933, 91 S.Ct. 2262, 29 L.Ed.2d 712 (1971); State v. Reyes, 78 N.M. 527, 433 P.2d 506 (Ct.App.1967). District courts are courts of original jurisdiction and have the power to try all offenses, misdemeanor and felony. S......