Trujillo v. State, 8662
| Docket Nº | No. 8662 |
| Citation | 1968 NMSC 179, 447 P.2d 279, 79 N.M. 618 |
| Case Date | November 18, 1968 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Page 279
v.
STATE of New Mexico, Defendant-Appellee.
[79 NM 618] Leon Karelitz, Las Vegas, for plaintiff-appellant.
Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Donald W. Miller, Spencer T. King, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee.
COMPTON, Justice.
Appellant appeals from an order denying post conviction relief under Rule 93, § 21--1--1(93), N.M.S.A.1953. He was charged in the district court with the crime of murder when he was seventeen years of age, and entered a plea of guilty to first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. Some seven years later, after he had attained his majority, he commenced habeas corpus proceedings and was discharged due to procedural error in transferring jurisdiction from the juvenile court to the district court. Trujillo v. Cox, 75 N.M. 257, 403 P.2d 696. He was then charged in the district court with the same murder to which [79 NM 619]
Page 280
he had pleaded guilty previously and, upon arraignment, with counsel, he again entered a plea of guilty to murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment.At the Rule 93 hearing upon the issues raised by appellant's motion, the court concluded that the sentencing court had jurisdiction to try the accused for murder and that his plea of guilty was voluntary. An order was entered accordingly, and he appeals.
Appellant makes the contention that the district court did not have jurisdiction to try him for a murder committed when he was a juvenile. We disagree; the district court is one of general jurisdiction, Art. VI, § 13, New Mexico Constitution, and the fact that proceedings were instituted against him for the same murder after he had attained his majority did not preclude prosecution for the crime of murder. Sections 13--8--20, 13--8--26, subd. B and 13--8--29, N.M.S.A.1953. Other jurisdictions with statutes similar to ours have reached this conclusion. State v. Dehler, 257 Minn. 549, 102 N.W.2d 696, 89 A.L.R.2d 496. In this connection, we note that § 13--8--26, subd. B, by its language, specifically provides for retention of the juvenile court's jurisdiction obtained over a minor under 18 until he reaches 21. It would follow that no provision is made for jurisdiction in that court when the age of 21 is passed. Also, in the proviso in § 13--8--27, N.M.S.A.1953, which permits transfer to district court, all references are to a 'child' over 14 years of age. A 'juvenile' is defined in § 13--8--20, N.M.S.A.1953, as a person less than 18 years of age. 'Child' does not appear to be defined, but must be either the same as a juvenile or, at least, not a person over 21 years of age. Section 13--8--20, N.M.S.A.1953, says that anyone over 18 years of age is an 'adult.' The language of § 13--8--29, N.M.S.A.1953, is noteworthy, wherein it is stated that the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court over juveniles continues until the juvenile reaches 21 or transfer is made under § 13--8--27, N.M.S.A.1953. Applying this language, under the facts here, where an offense was committed by a boy under 18 but over 14, jurisdiction of the juvenile court attached and continued until he reached 21. After that, the jurisdiction ceased and there was nothing to prevent proceeding without following § 13--8--27, N.M.S.A. 1953. State ex rel. Trujillo v. Neal, 75 N.M. 458, 405 P.2d 938. Another question might arise if the prosecutor delayed proceeding until the juvenile passed 21 in order to avoid the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodriguez, 27,409.
...Id. at 188, 217 P.2d at 265. The jurisdictional exception was later applied in a number of New Mexico cases. E.g., Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 619, 447 P.2d 279, 280 (1968); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 298, 414 P.2d 512, 517 (1966); State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 228-29, 539 P.2d 617, 6......
-
Ramirez v. State Children, Youth & Families Dep't, S–1–SC–34613.
...this case. 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b)(2). New Mexico's district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Trujillo v. State, 1968–NMSC–179, ¶ 3, 79 N.M. 618, 447 P.2d 279. Their power to adjudicate claims is grounded in the New Mexico Constitution, not in a federal statute. N.M. Const. art. VI, §......
-
State v. Romero, 3895
...on State v. Dehler, 257 Minn. 549, 102 N.W.2d 696, 89 A.L.R.2d 496 (1968), cited with approval on other grounds in Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 447 P.2d 279 (1968). Dehler was indicted in 1941 for the crime of murder of his mother, father, brother and sister in the first degree. He was t......
-
State v. Price, 8726
...617 (Ct.App.1975). Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, there is no basis for a claim of double jeopardy. Id.; Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 447 P.2d 279 (1968); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512 (1966). Therefore, on remand, the state is not precluded from refiling and ch......
-
State v. Rodriguez, 27,409.
...Id. at 188, 217 P.2d at 265. The jurisdictional exception was later applied in a number of New Mexico cases. E.g., Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 619, 447 P.2d 279, 280 (1968); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 298, 414 P.2d 512, 517 (1966); State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 228-29, 539 P.2d 617, 6......
-
Ramirez v. State Children, Youth & Families Dep't, S–1–SC–34613.
...this case. 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b)(2). New Mexico's district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Trujillo v. State, 1968–NMSC–179, ¶ 3, 79 N.M. 618, 447 P.2d 279. Their power to adjudicate claims is grounded in the New Mexico Constitution, not in a federal statute. N.M. Const. art. VI, §......
-
State v. Romero, 3895
...on State v. Dehler, 257 Minn. 549, 102 N.W.2d 696, 89 A.L.R.2d 496 (1968), cited with approval on other grounds in Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 447 P.2d 279 (1968). Dehler was indicted in 1941 for the crime of murder of his mother, father, brother and sister in the first degree. He was t......
-
State v. Price, 8726
...617 (Ct.App.1975). Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, there is no basis for a claim of double jeopardy. Id.; Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 447 P.2d 279 (1968); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512 (1966). Therefore, on remand, the state is not precluded from refiling and ch......