State v. Till, No. 9159
| Docket Nº | No. 9159 |
| Citation | 484 P.2d 1265, 82 N.M. 555, 1971 NMSC 56 |
| Case Date | May 10, 1971 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Page 1265
v.
Tommie Clayton TILL, Defendant-Appellant.
Page 1266
McAtee, Marchiondo & Michael, O. L. Puccini, Jr., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.
TACKETT, Justice.
The District Court of Eddy County, New Mexico, denied a motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. Defendant appeals.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief, based on (1) a 'shotgun' instruction, (2) inadequate counsel (no objection was raised in the original trial of this case, cited as State v. Till, 78 N.M. 255, 430 P.2d 752 (1967)), and (3) newly discovered evidence. All three contentions are without merit.
Numbers (1) and (2) are controlled by the holding in State v. Travis, 79 N.M. 307, 442 P.2d 797 (Ct.App.1968), and State v. Salazar, 81 N.M. 512, 469 P.2d 157 (Ct.App.1970). With respect to number (3), the requirements necessary to warrant a new trial on newly discovered evidence are set forth in State v. Ramirez, 79 N.M. 475, 444 P.2d 986 (1968):
'* * * (1) it will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) it must have been discovered since the trial; (3) it must be such that it could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) it must be material to the issue; (5) it must not be merely cumulative; and (6) it must not be merely impeaching or contradictory. * * *'
See cases cited therein.
Under the above requirements, defendant failed to set forth sufficient facts in his petition, or by affidavit, to warrant consideration by the trial court, as the contended newly discovered evidence was not disclosed, nor is it revealed by the record in this court.
Based on such nondisclosure, the petition must fail.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed. It is so ordered.
COMPTON, C.J., and McMANUS, J., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1996 -NMSC- 78, Sims v. Sims, No. 21818
...of state and federal leased land. We stated that we did not "find error concerning the partition of leased lands." Id. at 555, 484 P.2d at 1265. In Sullivan, any proposal to partition leased lands was not deemed to be a rule of law, but merely a recommendation that could be made t......
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, No. 9158
...by the trial court in its acceptance of the commissioners' report which categorized the lands involved by descriptive names rather than by [82 NM 555] Page 1265 metes and bounds in accordance with § 22--13--6, supra. However, the applicable metes and bounds descriptions were contained in th......
-
1996 -NMSC- 78, Sims v. Sims, No. 21818
...of state and federal leased land. We stated that we did not "find error concerning the partition of leased lands." Id. at 555, 484 P.2d at 1265. In Sullivan, any proposal to partition leased lands was not deemed to be a rule of law, but merely a recommendation that could be made t......
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, No. 9158
...by the trial court in its acceptance of the commissioners' report which categorized the lands involved by descriptive names rather than by [82 NM 555] Page 1265 metes and bounds in accordance with § 22--13--6, supra. However, the applicable metes and bounds descriptions were contained in th......