State v. Weddle

• Decision Date: 06 February 1967
• Docket Number: No. 8308,8308
• Citation: 77 N.M. 420,1967 NMSC 28,423 P.2d 611
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Carl C. WEDDLE, Respondent.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 611

423 P.2d 611

77 N.M. 420

STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Carl C. WEDDLE, Respondent.

No. 8308.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 6, 1967.

Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O'Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for petitioner

Carl C. Weddle, pro se.

E. T. Johnson, Santa Fe, amicus curiae.

OPINION

MOISE, Justice.

Pursuant to authority contained in § 16--7--14, N.M.S.A.1953, certiorari has been granted in this case on petition of the State to review the question of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.

This is an appeal from an order denying release of Carl C. Weddle as sought in a motion filed by him pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 93 (§ 21--1--1(93), N.M.S.A.1953). The appeal was docketed in this court, and was by us transferred to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of § 16--7--10, N.M.S.A.1953. That court, in its opinion in State v. Weddle, No. 7 on its docket and filed November 21, 1966, stated that the transfer by us constituted 'a final determination of jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals to decide all questions presented by the appeal,' citing § 16--7--10, N.M.S.A.1953. We quote that section:

'No matter on appeal in the Supreme Court or the court of appeals shall be dismissed for the reason that it should have been docketed in the other court, but it shall be transferred by the court in which it is filed to the proper court. Any transfer under this section is a final determination of jurisdiction. Whenever either court determines it has jurisdiction in a case filed in that court and proceeds to decide the matter, that determination of jurisdiction is final. No additional fees or costs shall be charged when a case is transferred to another court under this section.'

We are now called upon to determine if the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction under § 16--7--8, N.M.S.A.1953, of an appeal taken pursuant to Rule 93(e), supra. We must also consider if the transfer made by us, as noted above, was a final determination of jurisdiction as provided in § 16--7--10, supra, and as held by the Court of Appeals.

Section 16--7--8, N.M.S.A.1953, dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:

'The appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals is coextensive with the state, and the court has jurisdiction to review on appeal:

A. any civil action which includes a count in which one (1) or more of the parties seeks damages on an issue based on tort, including but not limited to products liability actions;

B. All actions under the Workmen's Compensation Act (59--10--1 to 59--10--37), the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law (59--11--1 to 59--11--42) and the Subsequent Injury Act (59--10--126 to 59--10--138);

C. criminal actions except those in which a judgment of the district court imposes a sentence of death or life imprisonment;

D. actions for violation of municipal or county ordinances where a fine or imprisonment is imposed;

E. decisions of those administrative agencies of the state where direct review by the court of appeals is provided by law; and

F. decisions in any other action as may be provided by law.'

It is quite apparent that an appeal from an order entered on a motion seeking the vacating, setting aside or correcting of a sentence under Rule 93 does not fit into any of the areas of appellate jurisdiction granted to the Court of Appeals unless it can be considered as an appeal in a criminal case under § 16--7--8(C), supra.

There can be no doubt that Rule 93 was copied from 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. It is a postconviction remedy not previously available to prisoners in custody. It has not been replaced or supplanted habeas corpus which is not suspended, as indeed it could not be under Art. I, Sec. 9, U.S. Const., and Art. II, Sec. 7, N.M. Const. In support of this we quote the following from United States v. Anselmi (3rd Cir., 1953) 207 F.2d 312, cert. denied, 345 U.S. 947, 97 L.Ed. 1371, 73 S.Ct. 868:

'Anselmi raises in this court a constitutional question which calls for brief discussion. He urges that section 2255 of title 28 is unconstitutional because it operates to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in violation of Article I, section 9, clause 2, of the Constitution. We do not agree. On the contrary, section 2255 is a remedial statute the purpose of which is to afford to a convicted federal prisoner a remedy which is the substantial equivalent of the conventional writ of habeas corpus but in a more convenient forum, the original trial court. To limit the prisoner to this remedy, except when it is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, as section 2255 does, is not to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. So long as there is open to the prisoner an adequate and effective remedy in one court, with full right of review by appeal and petition for certiorari, it is not a suspension of the writ to withhold jurisdiction from other federal courts. Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 350; Barrett v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 510, 20 A.L.R.2d 965, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 897, 71 S.Ct. 234, 95 L.Ed. 650.'

See, also, Stirone v. Markley, 345 F.2d 473 (7th Cir., 1965); Anno., 20 A.L.R.2d 976, 998; Anno., 96 L.Ed. 244, 251.

Is the proceeding seeking release from custody civil or criminal? We know that habeas corpus has long been recognized by us as a civil proceeding, Leach v. Cox, 74 N.M. 143, 391 P.2d 649; In re Borrego, 8 N.M. 655, 46 P. 211. This accords with the prevailing view as to the nature of the proceeding. 25 Am.Jur. 151, Habeas Corpus, § 12. In line with the theories upon which habeas corpus proceedings have been held to be civil, actions in federal court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, have also been held to be civil and governed by the rules of civil procedure. Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959); Martin v. United States, 273 F.2d 775, 777 (10th Cir., 1960); Hixon v. United States, 268 F.2d 667 (10th Cir., 1959); United States v. Williamson, 255 F.2d 512, 515 (5th Cir., 1958); Estep v. United States, 251 F.2d 579, 581 (5th Cir., 1958); Taylor v. United States, 229 F.2d 826, 832 (8th Cir., 1956).

As previously noted, we adopted our Rule 93 from 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, and accordingly the interpretation placed on that section by the federal courts is persuasive of the meaning of the identical rule adopted by us. Lopez v. Singh, 53 N.M. 245, 205 P.2d 492.

The federal cases passing on the rule have uniformly concluded that the proceeding is civil as distinguished from criminal. We know of no exception. Similarly, in those states which have adopted 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 by statute or rule, we find uniform holdings that the proceeding is civil. See State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 399 P.2d 799; 12 Kan.L.R. 493, 495; Crownover v. Shannon (Fla., 1964) 170 So.2d 299. We see no escape from the conclusion that actions under Rule 93 should be considered to be civil.

Having so concluded, is it still possible to bring the proceeding within the terms of § 16--7--8(C), supra? That it is not, would seem to be obvious. We see no language of the legislature that could be considered to be ambiguous in this regard, so as to present a question of interpretation. We only enter upon a process of interpretation when language of a statute is ambiguous, and to asceertain legislative intent. Torres v. Gamble, 75 N.M. 741, 410 P.2d 959; Martinez v. Research Park, Inc., 75 N.M. 672, 410 P.2d 200; Weiser v. Albuquerque Oil & Gasoline Co., 64 N.M. 137, 325 P.2d 720. We see nothing in words used by the legislature which can remotely be considered to have contemplated appeals under Rule 93 as appeals in 'criminal actions' as that term is used in § 16--7--8(C), supra.

In light of the above, what is the effect of our having entered an order transferring the appeal to the Court of Appeals? Art. VI, Sec. 2, N.M. Const., grants certain appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and provides it shall have 'additional appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.' Similarly, Art. VI, Sec. 29, N.M. Const., provides that the Court of Appeals 'shall exercise appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.' We have set forth above § 16--7--8, N.M.S.A.1953, specifying the jurisdiction granted to the Court of Appeals. In § 16--7--14, N.M.S.A.1953, the legislature provided that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 'extends to all cases where appellate jurisdiction is not specifically vested by law in the court of appeals.' Since the Court of Appeals is granted jurisdiction in specific cases, not including Rule 93 proceedings, it necessarily follows that the appeal in these proceedings must be to the Supreme Court, where the jurisdiction of all appeals in cases not specified is placed.

We need not decide, but merely express a doubt that the legislature intended by the language used in § 16--7--10, supra, to vest in either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the power to alter jurisdiction, as provided in § 16--7--8, supra, and § 16--7--14, supra.

Based on the foregoing, we are convinced that our order transferring this appeal was improvidently entered, and should be set aside and the cause returned to this Court.

In addition to the application for a writ of certiorari filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the State, we notice an instrument filed pro se by the defendant and denominated 'A Laymans Application for the Motion of Appeal 'For Review." Under Supreme Court Rule 29(2), a petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed 'within twenty days after final action by the Court of Appeals.' Defendant's application was late, and not entitled to consideration. However, no prejudice resulted thereby in view of the fact that our writ of certiorari issued, and we have here determined that jurisdiction of the appeal is properly in this Court.

We would add a word of appreciation and commendation to E. T. Johnson, Esq., who, at the request of the Court, so ably...