State v. Sandoval
| Decision Date | 16 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 8790,8790 |
| Citation | 80 N.M. 333,455 P.2d 837,1969 NMSC 75 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Petitioner, Gilbert Sandoval, seeks by a Rule 93 petition (§ 21--1--1(93), N.M.S.A.1953, Supp. 1967) to have an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment, following his conviction of burglary and proof of three prior felony convictions, set aside because of asserted comments by the district attorney concerning the defendant's failure to testify in his own behalf.
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, holds that the Federal Constitution forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused's silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt. This petitioner appealed his conviction, State v. Sandoval, 76 N.M. 570, 417 P.2d 56, asserting error by reason of comment by the district attorney on his failure to testify. No record was made of the arguments of counsel. We, accordingly, denied his contention as being unsupported by the record. He now asserts two grounds for relief by his Rule 93 motion, (1) that his sentence under § 40A--29--5 through § 40A--29--8, N.M.S.A. 1953, is discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, and (2) that his conviction and sentence must be vacated because of comments by the district attorney on the defendant's failure to testify.
Petitioner's contention that the habitual criminal act is discriminatory and in violation of the equl protection clause of the Constitution was ruled against him in State v. Baldonado, 79 N.M. 175, 441 P.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1968).
After a hearing on the motion for post-conviction relief, the judge, who presided during defendant's trial, determined that the evidence presented at the hearing was not sufficient to establish any comment by the district attorney which infringed upon the defendant's constitutional right not to testify in his own behalf. In State v. Chavez, 78 N.M. 446, 432 P.2d 411, we said that the trial court--not the appellate court--is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given evidence at a hearing for post-conviction relief. We also said that the petitioner has the burden of establishing his claims. Our review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Deats
...State v. Holley, 79 N.M. 516, 445 P.2d 393 (Ct.App.1968); State v. Sharp, 79 N.M. 498, 445 P.2d 101 (Ct.App.1968); see State v. Sandoval, 80 N.M. 333, 455 P.2d 837 (1969). Indeterminate sentence as cruel and unusual Defendant contends his sentence of not less than ten nor more than fifty ye......
-
Hack v. Auger, 2--57507
...Wessling v. Bennett, (8th Cir. 1969), 410 F.2d 205, 207, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 945, 90 S.Ct. 384, 24 L.Ed.2d 248; State v. Sandoval, 80 N.M. 333, 455 P.2d 837 (1969); State v. Eaton, 199 Kan. 610, 433 P.2d 347, 348 (1967); White v. State, 83 Nev. 292, 429 P.2d 55, 56 (1967); State v. Wilwo......
-
Sandoval v. Rodriguez
...Sandoval had failed to support his claim of improper closing argument and, on appeal, this judgment was affirmed. State v. Sandoval, 80 N.M. 333, 455 P.2d 837 (1969). With his case in this posture, Sandoval then brought the present proceeding in the United States District Court for the Dist......
-
Robinson v. State, 649
...cast doubt on the truth of petitioner's testimony. Patterson v. State, 81 N.M. 210, 465 P.2d 93 (Ct.App.1970); compare State v. Sandoval, 80 N.M. 333, 455 P.2d 837 (1969); State v. Chavez, 78 N.M. 446, 432 P.2d 411 (1967). Under these circumstances, the trial court was not required to accep......