{
  "id": 2739875,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter A. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thomas",
  "decision_date": "1968-06-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 184",
  "first_page": "346",
  "last_page": "347",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.M. 346"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "443 P.2d 516"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "79 N.M. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2737329
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.M. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2742697
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0009-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5323637
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0702-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 2568,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.671,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.685371297493976e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4925646244240494
    },
    "sha256": "6557089d448ac48c6629eff39c95b300db0a32cdc867eec7b01830694b59f2fc",
    "simhash": "1:21380ca2840c877a",
    "word_count": 422
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:21:18.946358+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SPIESS, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter A. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nARMIJO, Judge.\nWalter A. Thomas pleaded guilty to an information charging him with commission \u25a0of an offense in violation of the provisions \u2022of \u00a7 40A-9-9, N.M.S.A. 1953 and on September 27, 1965, was sentenced to the State Penitentiary for a period of not less than \u2022one year nor more than five years.\nAppellant filed a motion under Rule 93 I\u00a7 21-1-1 (93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1967) ] : whereby he seeks credit for time \u2022spent in presentence confinement from June 18, 1965 to date of sentencing. Appellant was denied a hearing and he appeals from \u2022an order overruling his motion.\nAppellant claims as error the trial court\u2019s refusal to give retroactive effect to the' provisions of \u00a7 40A-29-25, N.M.S.A. 1953.\nThe retroactive application of this statute has been denied in several recent cases \u2022decided by the New Mexico Supreme Court \u2022and the New Mexico Court of Appeals. \u25a0On the issue of retroactive application of the statute we quote from State v. Padilla, 78 N.M. 702, 437 P.2d 163 (Ct.App.1968):\n\u201cThis Act became effective in 1967. The sole question presented is whether the statute is applicable to the sentence which was imposed upon defendant in 1963. To so apply it would require that it be given retrospective effect. The trial court \u2022correctly refused to so interpret the statute.\ns\u00a1: \u2021 \u2021 s{i iji #\n\u201cWe find no language in the Act under consideration here which indicates an intention upon the part of the legislature to give it retroactive effect. * * * \u201d\nSee also State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 9, 439 P.2d 226 (1968).\nAppellant\u2019s contention that failure to give retroactive effect to \u00a7 40A-29-25, supra, violated the equal protection afforded him under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is found to be without merit.\nWe recently resolved the same issue in State v. Sedillo (Ct.App.) 79 N.M. 255, 442 P.2d 213, decided May 24, 1968, and concluded that there is no denial of equal protection of the laws in failing to give retroactive effect to a newly created right which allows credit for preseritence confinement.\nWe conclude that the trial court was correct in overruling and denying the motion without a hearing.\nThe order denying the motion is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARMIJO, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bob F. Turner, Atwood & Malone, Roswell, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O\u2019Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff.appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "443 P.2d 516\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter A. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant..\nNo. 184.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 14, 1968.\nBob F. Turner, Atwood & Malone, Roswell, for defendant-appellant.\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O\u2019Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff.appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0346-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 379
}