{
  "id": 5370863,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lee BAMBROUGH, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bambrough",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 454",
  "first_page": "548",
  "last_page": "550",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 N.M. 548"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "469 P.2d 527"
    }
  ],
  "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": "388 F.2d 453",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2094211
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/388/0453-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "392 F.2d 440",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2106256
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/392/0440-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 L.Ed.2d 881",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 S.Ct. 2039",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "391 U.S. 968",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1767460,
        1767782,
        1767593,
        1767789,
        1767759,
        1767667,
        1767635,
        1767385,
        1767708
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/391/0968-02",
        "/us/391/0968-04",
        "/us/391/0968-08",
        "/us/391/0968-09",
        "/us/391/0968-01",
        "/us/391/0968-03",
        "/us/391/0968-07",
        "/us/391/0968-05",
        "/us/391/0968-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 F.2d 160",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2091198
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/387/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 F.2d 58",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        121063
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/327/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5319913
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0605-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5322364
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0655-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 P.2d 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5359847
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.M. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2742972
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.M. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804640
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.M. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2737677
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0385-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3315,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.682,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.157786812253658e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5083636150215708
    },
    "sha256": "ebd0edd7a8501110c00b809989dc4199173831477a1ad231bcd165742bf7a91f",
    "simhash": "1:0054b6429f4f1536",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757301+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SPIES S, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lee BAMBROUGH, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for post-conviction relief under \u00a7 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969) claimed that parole authorities and penitentiary officials had improperly figured the time he had served on his sentence. The claim raised two issues: (1) time served on parole before being returned as a parole violator \u2014 see \u00a7 41-17-28, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6), and (2) credit for \u201cgood time\u201d \u2014 see \u00a7 42-1-54, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6). Both issues are justiciable. See Conston v. New Mexico St. Bd. of Probation & Parole, 79 N.M. 385, 444 P.2d 296 (1968); Sneed v. Cox, 74 N.M. 659, 397 P.2d 308 (1964). The question is whether a motion for post-conviction relief is the proper procedure to litigate defendant\u2019s claims; specifically, whether a post-conviction motion is the proper remedy.\nSection 21-1-1(93), supra, authorizes post-conviction relief for an improper sentence. Thus, where the trial court has given or refused credit on a sentence, we have considered claims concerning such credit in proceedings under \u00a7 21-1-1(93), supra. State v. Reinhart, 79 N.M. 36, 439 P.2d 554 (1968) ; State v. Murray, 468 P.2d 416 (Ct.App.), decided April 3, 1970; State v. Sublett, 78 N.M. 655, 436 P.2d 515 (Ct.App. 1968).\nDefendant\u2019s claims attack neither the sentence imposed by the court nor any credit on the sentence ordered by the court. Rather, defendant\u2019s claims go to the way officials have figured the time served on his sentence. These claims pertain to the way these officials have interpreted certain statutes.\nState v. Walburt, 78 N.M. 605, 435 P.2d 435 (1967) holds that a post-conviction motion is not the proper procedure for an attack on the official\u2019s interpretation of the statute on which defendant relies. The distinction we draw is between an attack on the court\u2019s sentence and a claim against parole and penitentiary officials for the way the sentence has been executed. The former is cognizable by post-conviction motion; the latter is not. Compare Allen v. United States, 327 F.2d 58 (5th Cir. 1964) with Evans v. United States, 387 F.2d 160 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied 391 U.S. 968, 88 S.Ct. 2039, 20 L.Ed.2d 881 (1968) ; United States v. Lewis, 392 F.2d 440 (4th Cir. 1968) ; James v. United States, 388 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1968).\nThe validity of the distinction is demonstrated in this case. Here, defendant seeks relief against parole and penitentiary authorities. He challenges their interpretation of certain statutes, as those statutes have been applied to him. He seeks to do so in a proceeding in which the officials are neither parties nor before the court.\nA motion under \u00a7 21-1-1(93), supra, is not the procedure for obtaining relief on the claims made by defendant. For the remedy available, see Conston v. New Mexico St. Bd. of Probation & Parole, supra, and Sneed v. Cox, supra.\nThe order of the trial court, denying defendant\u2019s motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing, is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIES S, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harold N. Olive, Carlsbad, for defendant-appellant.",
      "James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, William J. Torrington, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "469 P.2d 527\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lee BAMBROUGH, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 454.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 1, 1970.\nHarold N. Olive, Carlsbad, for defendant-appellant.\nJames A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, William J. Torrington, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0548-01",
  "first_page_order": 594,
  "last_page_order": 596
}