{
  "id": 5367295,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Arthur SISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sisneros",
  "decision_date": "1970-01-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 404",
  "first_page": "194",
  "last_page": "195",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 N.M. 194"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "464 P.2d 924"
    }
  ],
  "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": "78 N.M. 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5322803
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N. M. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2807534
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321896
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5319949
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5320491
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0434-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321876
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.M. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5348411
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/71/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5354600
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.M. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2776750
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/63/0067-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3673,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.674,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6521348479560446e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6929317114627146
    },
    "sha256": "fc32b894f549ea75b16a8f68497e81db68edff87fb1e838843495411f1f71145",
    "simhash": "1:30d604439dd3f430",
    "word_count": 585
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757301+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Arthur SISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nDenied post-conviction relief under \u00a7 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969), defendant appeals. Defendant\u2019s contentions, and our answers, are:\n1. Defendant committed murder in 1961. He was convicted of second degree murder. The penalty statute applicable to this offense, \u00a7 40-24-10, N.M.S.A.1953 (now repealed) provided for imprisonment \u201c \u2018 * * * for any period of time not less than three (3) years * * *.\u2019 \u201d Defendant was sentenced to not less than three years nor more than the rest of his natural life. He contends this sentence is not authorized by the penalty statute. His contention is erroneous.\nState v. Maestas, 63 N.M. 67, 313 P.2d 337 (1957) held the penalty statute was to be read in connection with the Indeterminate Sentence Act then applicable. Section 41-17-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (now repealed). When read together, the statutes provided a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Thus, defendant\u2019s sentence imposed both the minimum and maximum penalty prescribed by law. Torres v. State, 80 N.M. 511, 458 P.2d 586 (1969).\n2. Because \u00a7 40-24 \u2014 10, supra, did not specify a maximum sentence, defendant contends that statute amounts to an unconstitutional attempt to delegate a legislative power to the judiciary. We disagree. The fixing of penalties is, of course, a legislative function. McCutcheon v. Cox, 71 N.M. 274, 377 P.2d 683 (1962). When the Legislature specified the minimum penalty but specified no maximum penalty, by implication it authorized a penalty in excess of the minimum. McCutcheon v. Cox, supra, states that under the philosophy of the Indeterminate Sentence Act, \u00a7 41-17-1, supra, \u201c * * * this is necessarily so.\u201d A maximum penalty of life imprisonment was intended. See Jones v. Cox, 73 N.M. 450, 389 P.2d 214 (1964); Starkey v. Cox, 73 N.M. 434, 389 P.2d 203 (1964). The maximum penalty being authorized by implication, there has been no delegation of legislative power.\n3. Even though \u00a7 40-24-10, supra, as construed by the New Mexico Supreme Court, includes a minimum and maximum penalty, defendant seems to assert the sentencing court is vested with discretion to set the maximum term. Such discretion is asserted to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The point is without merit because \u00a7 41-17-1, supra, required the judge to sentence the defendant to the term prescribed by law. The 1955 amendment to \u00a7 41-17-1, supra, (Laws 1955, ch. 150, \u00a7 1) \u201c* * * completely removed from the trial court any discretion in pronouncing sentences other than for the minimum and maximum provided by law for the particular offense involved. * * * \u201d State v. Romero, 73 N.M. 109, 385 P.2d 967 (1963).\n4. Defendant contends the punishment prescribed by \u00a7 40-24-10, supra, of not less than three years and not more than life, constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the constitution. Defendant makes no attempt to show why his sentence amounts to cruel or unusual punishment. Compare State v. Hines, 78 N.M. 471, 432 P.2d 827 (1967). He presents neither argument nor authority in support of the proposition. State v. Rhodes, 77 N. M. 536, 425 P.2d 47 (1967). The contention presents no issue for decision. However, as to the merits of this contention, see State v. Peters, 78 N.M. 224, 430 P.2d 382 (1967).\nThe order denying relief is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank P. Dickson, Jr., Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, James V. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "464 P.2d 924\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Arthur SISNEROS, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 404.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 23, 1970.\nFrank P. Dickson, Jr., Albuquerque, for appellant.\nJames A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, James V. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0194-01",
  "first_page_order": 240,
  "last_page_order": 241
}