{
  "id": 2741461,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles TRAVIS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Travis",
  "decision_date": "1968-08-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 170",
  "first_page": "420",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.M. 420"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "444 P.2d 605"
    }
  ],
  "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. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2747298
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0175-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1220,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.704,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08399196246576537
    },
    "sha256": "47c25f0ddacd34915f932c7b66b671e3ee82235a25cdb1568133e6eefba5a3f9",
    "simhash": "1:80aafec15b93b02e",
    "word_count": 193
  },
  "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 ARMIJO, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles TRAVIS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nDefendant appeals from a denial of post-conviction relief under \u00a7 21-1-1(93) N.M.S.A.1953. He asserts that the trial court erred in failing to give him a hearing on one of the claims asserted in his motion. Generally speaking, that claim asserts that the sentence imposed upon him as an habitual offender is constitutionally defective because enhanced sentences have not been imposed upon certain other defendants.\nWith the exception of dates and the District Attorney referred to, the specific claim made is identical to the claim made in State v. Baldonado, 79 N.M. 175, 441 P.2d 215 (Ct.App.1968). There, we held the claim did not provide a basis for post-conviction relief. Baldonado is applicable here; accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion without a hearing.\nThe order denying relief is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and ARMIJO, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas J. Dunn, Nordhaus & Moses, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O\u2019Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "444 P.2d 605\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles TRAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 170.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 9, 1968.\nThomas J. Dunn, Nordhaus & Moses, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O\u2019Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0420-01",
  "first_page_order": 452,
  "last_page_order": 452
}