State v. Sedillo

CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico
Citation442 P.2d 212,79 N.M. 254,1968 NMCA 32
Docket NumberNo. 146,146
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Romero SEDILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date24 May 1968

OMAN, Judge.

Defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced to the New Mexico State Penitentiary for a term of two to ten years for the possession of marijuana. He is now before us on appeal from an order denying, without hearing, his motion under Rule 93 (§ 21--1--1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967)).

His contentions as set forth in his motion are that his imprisonment and confinement are illegal because: (1) he was convicted and imprisoned without due process of law; (2) the prosecution on the trial failed to introduce into evidence the physical substance purporting to be marijuana; (3) there was insufficient evidence adduced at the trial to connect him with the purorted marijuana, or to prove that such substance actually existed; and (4) the foregoing constituted the perpetration of a fraud upon the trial court.

In his brief in chief he urges that the matters asserted in his motion were such that, if proved, the setting aside of his conviction would be required, and hence he was entitled to the appointment of counsel and a hearing on the motion.

As to his first contention, the mere allegation of absence of due process is not sufficient to raise an issue under Rule 93. State v. Lobb,78 N.M. 735, 437 P.2d 1004 (1968); State v. Crouch, 77 N.M. 657, 427 P.2d 19 (1967).

His second and third contentions are attacks upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. The trial court and the jury felt the evidence was sufficient. Allegations as to the insufficiency of the evidence, or claimed errors which may have occurred during trial pertaining to the introduction or failure of introduction of certain evidence, are not matters upon which relief can be granted in a Rule 93 proceeding. See State v. Lobb, supra; State v. Crouch, supra. Proceedings under Rule 93 are not intended as a substitute for an appeal as a means for correcting errors which may have occurred during the course of the trial. State v. Williams, 78 N.M. 431, 432 P.2d 396 (1967).

His fourth contention, that a fraud was perpetrated upon hthe court, is entirely without merit. Our disposition of his first three contentions, which he alleges constituted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Sisneros, 8619
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • November 8, 1968
    ...judgment of conviction or the sentence. They are evidentiary matters which may be raised only on a direct appeal. State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 254, 442 P.2d 212 (Ct.App.1968); McLester v. United States, 306 F.2d 880 (10th Cir. 1962); Caviness v. United States, 226 F.2d 216 (4th Cir. 1955). See......
  • Nance v. State, 261
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • March 7, 1969
    ...1961); United States v. Shields, 291 F.2d 798 (6th Cir. 1961); Moss v. United States, 263 F.2d 615 (5th Cir. 1959); State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 254, 442 P.2d 212 (Ct.App.1968). See also State v. Williams, 78 N.M. 431, 432 P.2d 396 (1967); State v. Selgado, 78 N.M. 165, 429 P.2d 363 However, h......
  • Miller v. State, 500
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • September 25, 1970
    ...... State v. Miller, 80 N.M. 227, 453 P.2d 590 (Ct.App.1969), cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219 (1969).         He relies upon two points for reversal, the first of which is: 'THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE HEARSAY TESTIMONY BY OFFICER ARTHUR SEDILLO THAT DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL MARIJUANA TRAFFIC.'.         The testimony referred to is the testimony of Officer Sedillo discussed in State v. Alberts, 80 N.M. 472, 457 P.2d 991 (Ct.App.1969). As stated in the opinion in that case, Miss Alberts and defendant were tried jointly. ......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • March 10, 1969
    ...v. Williams, 78 N.M. 431, 432 P.2d 396 (1967), supra; Nieto v. State, 79 N.M. 330, 443 P.2d 500 (Ct.App.1968); and State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 254, 442 P.2d 212 (Ct.App.1968). It is only under circumstances where it appears that the defendant was fundamentally deprived of a fair trial that po......
  • 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