Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 N.M. 526

395 P.2d 354

Gantar v. Cox

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1964

New Mexico Supreme Court · decided 1964-09-08

Relies on Feguer v. United States · Sanders v. Cox · State v. Garcia

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-09-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 1991

3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

1001964197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOBLE, Justice.

¶1 Petitioner was sentenced to serve not less than three nor more than fifteen years in the New Mexico penitentiary following a plea of guilty to unarmed robbery and has brought original habeas corpus in the Supreme Court contending abridgment of his fundamental constitutional rights because of failure to assign counsel to represent him before the magistrate.

¶2 Upon authority of Sanders v. Cox, 74 N.M. 525, 395 P.2d 353, the writ of habeas corpus heretofore issued should be discharged. The fact that petitioner was required to plead to the information in the district court without the benefit of counsel did not prejudice his case. A plea of not guilty was entered at the time of the arraignment without counsel, and neither at such arraignment nor before the magistrate did he make any statement which was used against him. Subsequently, petitioner’s family employed an attorney and he was represented by such attorney at the time his plea of not guilty was withdrawn and a plea of guilty entered. In re Application of De Toro, D.C., 222 F.Supp. 621. Compare State v. Garcia, 47 N.M. 319, 142 P.2d 552, 149 A.L.R. 1394. Under the facts presented to us, we find no abridgment of petitioner’s constitutional rights which requires that the sentence under which he is confined be vacated.

¶3 The record before us discloses a motion by petitioner’s attorney seeking a psychiatric examination. The motion was not ruled upon and was in effect withdrawn when petitioner entered his plea of guilty. There can be no question but that petitioner has a very low mentality, but as noted in Feguer v. United States (C.A. 8) 302 F.2d 214, nothing is required beyond a sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. The proof offered fell far short of meeting the requirement of a lack of such ability and understanding.

¶4 The writ will be discharged and petitioner remanded to the custody of the warden of the New Mexico State Penitentiary.

¶5 It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and CARMODY, CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur.
/74/nm/526 · .json · Public domain