¶1OPINION
¶2Defendant was convicted and sentenced for the unlawful possession of marijuana under § 54-7-13, N.M.S.A.1953 (Rpl. Vol. 8, Pt. 2). This Act is known as the Uniform Narcotics Drug Act.
¶3Defendant has appealed challenging the constitutionality of the Uniform Narcotics Drug Act. We do not consider the constitutional question raised..because, in our opinion, the trial court proceeded without jurisdiction to try and sentence defendant under the Uniform Narcotics Drug Act; the applicable Act being § 54 — 5-14, N.M. S.A.1953.
¶4This case, in our opinion, falls squarely within State v. McNeece, 82 N.M. 345, 481 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1971); See State v. Riley, 82 N.M. 235, 478 P.2d 563 (Ct.App.1970); State v. Rendleman, 481 P.2d 708 (Ct.App.) decided February 12, 1971; and State v. Thorn, 483 P.2d 312 (Ct.App.) decided March 12, 1971.
¶5We reverse with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence and. dismiss the charge under which defendant was convicted.
¶6It is so ordered.