{
  "id": 5359958,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lucero",
  "decision_date": "1970-04-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 480",
  "first_page": "578",
  "last_page": "580",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 N.M. 578"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "469 P.2d 727"
    }
  ],
  "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": "68 N.M. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2717312
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/68/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 F.2d 305",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        109017
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/325/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2801810
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0420-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3141,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.645,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5054692755262675e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6664531407043423
    },
    "sha256": "0489617f2394b591037c279f6cc7889cc828d2746b554370fbd7431df77523bf",
    "simhash": "1:850c243215c12140",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "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. Richard LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of the crime of rape on January 29, 1970. Defendant was sentenced on February 16, 1970. Defendant gave notice of appeal and on March 11, 1970 an Order Fixing Appeal Bond was entered fixing the sum at $10,000.00. The order further stated:\n\u201c * * * that said bond shall be made and executed by a corporate surety company authorized to do business in the State of New Mexico, as surety; and that personal sureties and individual sureties on a property bond will not be acceptable.\u201d\nDefendant filed a motion pursuant to \u00a721-2-1(9) (1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969) in the Supreme Court, asking that the Order Fixing Appeal Bond be modified by striking the requirement that only a corporate surety bond be acceptable. On March 26, 1970 the Supreme Court transferred \u201cthe entire file to the Court of Appeals.\u201d\nWe consider only defendant\u2019s motion.\nJurisdiction.\nThis court has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to \u00a7 16-7-8(C), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969). Although defendant\u2019s motion for review of the surety question was originally docketed in the Supreme Court, being No. 9025, it was transferred to this court by the Supreme Court Order. Since the original appeal was rightly in this court, (\u00a7 16-7-8(C), supra) the transfer of a motion closely related to that appeal is a final determination of jurisdiction. Section 16-7-10, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969); compare State v. Weddle, 77 N.M. 420, 423 P.2d 611 (1967); cf. \u00a7 21-2-1(9) (1), N.M. S.A. 1953 (Supp.1969).\nAppeal Bond.\nUnder the circumstances, defendant is entitled to bond pending final determination of his conviction. Const, of N.M. Art. II, \u00a7 13; \u00a7\u00a7 41-15-2(B), N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp. 1969) and 21-2-1(9) (4), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969). However, the determination of what bail is proper to grant is particularly within the trial court\u2019s discretion. Kaufman v. United States, 325 F.2d 305 (9th Cir. 1963).\nIn his motion defendant does not claim that the bond set was excessive per se. Nor does he assert that the trial court may not exercise its discretion in passing on the adequacy of the sureties. He does claim that a demand of a commercial surety, to the exclusion of a property surety, is an abuse of discretion. With this we agree.\nWe do not address ourselves to the question of what is meant by the phrase \u201camount and conditions\u201d of a bond. We merely hold that a demand for a corporate surety with a predetermined exclusion of all other collateral as surety is an abuse of discretion. See Montoya v. McManus, 68 N.M. 381, 362 P.2d 771 (1961). Normally the trial court can only exercise its discretion as to the adequacy of the sureties and not as to the type of sureties.\nWe reverse the Order Fixing Appeal Bond and remand for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.\nIt is sfo ordered.\nSPIESS C. J., and OMAN J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack L. Love, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Frank N. Chavez, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plainti f f-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "469 P.2d 727\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 480.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 24, 1970.\nJack L. Love, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nJames A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Frank N. Chavez, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plainti f f-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0578-01",
  "first_page_order": 624,
  "last_page_order": 626
}