State v. Sanchez

Citation420 P.2d 786,1966 NMCA 2,78 N.M. 25
Decision Date12 December 1966
Docket NumberNo. 4,4
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos (Charlie) SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico
OPINION

WOOD, Judge.

This appeal comes to us by transfer under § 16--7--10, N.M.S.A.1953.

Defendant, seeking post conviction relief, moved to vacate his judgment and sentence. The trial court considered the motion and the files and records of the case, denied relief under the motion and appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal.

Defendant claims that the trial court erred in (1) failing to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with the motion and (2) deciding the motion without the defendant being present.

Sections 21--1--1(93) and 41--15--8, N.M.S.A.1953, authorize post conviction remedies. Both provide:

'B. Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall * * * appoint local counsel if the prisoner is indigent, * * *

'C. A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.'

In denying the motion, the trial court proceeded in accordance with the quoted provisions. Relying on Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, 93 A.L.R.2d 733, and State v. Vaughn, 74 N.M. 365, 393 P.2d 711, defendant asserts that he is entitled to counsel at all critical stages of a criminal proceeding. Defendant claims that there is a critical stage if 'valuable rights may be won or lost,' and that his motion was such a critical stage. By inference, he applies this same argument to the question of his right to be present when the motion is decided.

The provisions for post conviction relief state that counsel is to be provided unless the motion, files and records conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to relief. Black, Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951) defines 'conclusive' as 'beyond question or beyond dispute.' According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 'conclusive' means 'so irrefutable as to end all uncertainty or question.' If there is no question, no dispute, no uncertainty that defendant is not entitled to relief, then the motion does not involve rights which can be won or lost, and the proceeding is not 'critical.'

A similar result has been reached under the federal provision for post conviction relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Counsel need not be appointed to represent defendant when the motion for relief is completely groundless. Huizar v. United States, 339 F.2d 173 (5th Cir. 1964); Kapsalis v. United States, 345 F.2d 392 (7th Cir.1965); Cerniglia v. United States, 230 F.Supp. 932 (N.D.Ill.1964). Nor is defendant's presence in court required before the court can decide the motion. Luse v. United States, 326 F.2d 338 (10th Cir.1964); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148; Dolack v. United States, 217 F.Supp. 617 (D. Hawaii 1963). Compare Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473.

Some of the federal cases reach this result by determining that the motion for post conviction relief is a civil rather than a criminal proceeding. That question is not presented by this appeal and we express no opinion thereon.

The above cited federal cases review the facts of the case to demonstrate that the motion for relief was completely groundless. We do not review the facts of this case for two reasons: (1) The only claims made are that defendant should have had counsel to represent him on his motion and that he should have been present when the motion was ruled on. No claim is made that the trial court erred in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Sisneros, 8619
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 8, 1968
    ...counsel. State v. Lobb, 78 N.M. 735, 437 P.2d 1004 (1968); State v. Decker, 79 N.M. 41, 439 P.2d 559 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Sanchez, 78 N.M. 25, 420 P.2d 786 (Ct.App.1966). Defendant's final two points are that: 'The State has the burden to show that procedural safeguards are provided at c......
  • State v. McCroskey
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • September 6, 1968
    ...was groundless, the appointment of counsel was unnecessary. State v. Ramirez, 78 N.M. 418, 432 P.2d 262 (1967); State v. Sanchez, 78 N.M. 25, 420 P.2d 786 (Ct.App.1966). Consequently, defendant must fail under his second point, in which he claims error on the part of the trial court in refu......
  • State v. Chavez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • December 20, 1968
    ...November 8, 1968; State v. Lobb, 78 N.M. 735, 437 P.2d 1004 (1968); State v. Decker,79 N.M. 41, 439 P.2d 559 (1968); State v. Sanchez, 78 N.M. 25, 420 P.2d 786 (1966). The order denying the motion should be It is so ordered. SPIESS, C.J., and WOOD, J., concur. ...
  • State v. Lobb
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • February 12, 1968
    ...accomplish the end sought by the petitioner, the trial court is not required to appoint counsel or grant a hearing. State v. Sanchez, 78 N.M. 25, 420 P.2d 786 (Ct.App.1966). Such is the situation here. The grounds for attack on the judgment and sentence were totally without merit and no hea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT