{
  "id": 5326550,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert G. ANAYA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Anaya",
  "decision_date": "1971-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 577",
  "first_page": "531",
  "last_page": "532",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 N.M. 531"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "484 P.2d 373"
    }
  ],
  "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": "390 U.S. 234",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6169464
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/390/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5353992,
        5358695,
        5359383
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0198-03",
        "/nm/80/0198-01",
        "/nm/80/0198-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5357376
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5333146
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0537-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2284,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.703,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.771788848249795e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5316226930604835
    },
    "sha256": "1a7a06cfd50151582617225289a2e7cba9520eaa00972bd30fd755c28af02f8c",
    "simhash": "1:b9471ae9dca72eee",
    "word_count": 379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:16:32.756560+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD and HENDLEY, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert G. ANAYA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSPIESS, Chief Judge.\nConvicted of the theft of automobile tires from an automobile, Sec. 64 \u2014 9-4, N.M. S.A.1953 (Rpl. Vol. 9, pt. 2), defendant, Anaya, has appealed. Anaya\u2019s contention is that the tires were obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of constitutional guarantees and their admission in evidence was prejudicial error. We affirm the judgment and conviction.\nThe undisputed material facts are: Officers of the Albuquerque Police Department were informed that a suspected theft of tires from automobiles at a used car lot was in progress. The officers proceeded immediately to the used car lot; Anaya was arrested as he attempted to flee from the scene. A suspect was apprehended in an automobile used by defendant. An officer testified that he saw the tires, which were admitted in evidence, in the rear of the car in which the suspect was seated. He also testified that the tires had blue rims, and that in his opinion, they matched the color of the rims of an automobile in the used car lot which had two tires missing.\nFollowing Anaya\u2019s arrest the officer removed the tires from the car and placed them in the patrol car. During trial they were admitted in evidence over Anaya\u2019s objection.\nContrary to defendant\u2019s contention, the undisputed facts fail to disclose a search. The tires were in plain view of the officer from a place where he had a right to be. No search occurred. The seizure was not constitutionally prohibited and consequently the tires were properly admitted in evidence.\nThis case appears to us to be controlled by: State v. Carlton, (Ct.App.) 82 N.M. 537, 484 P.2d 757, decided February 19, 1971; and State v. Miller, 80 N.M. 227, 453 P.2d 590 (Ct.App.1969), cert. denied 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219 (1969). See also Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968).\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD and HENDLEY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SPIESS, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. N. Franklin, Franklin & Anaya, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Smith, Mark B. Thompson, III, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "484 P.2d 373\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert G. ANAYA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 577.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 16, 1971.\nR. N. Franklin, Franklin & Anaya, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Smith, Mark B. Thompson, III, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0531-01",
  "first_page_order": 587,
  "last_page_order": 588
}