{
  "id": 5339978,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thomas HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hogan",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 832",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.M. 608"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "495 P.2d 388"
    }
  ],
  "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. 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2717829
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/68/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 558",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5365077
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0558-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8504176
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0655-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2580,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.649,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.339701094470699e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27287227942632947
    },
    "sha256": "bf3d15ef06b455a0422ea6e3348685cd5405967bffd6d1748d000322ab9a5c89",
    "simhash": "1:035fba7b50150c73",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SUTIN and COWAN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thomas HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nDefendant was indicted on two counts of attempted rape of a child (\u00a7\u00a7 40A-28-1, 40A-9-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1964)) and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (\u00a7 40A-6-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol.1964)). He pled guilty to the latter charge and was sentenced according to the statute. The two counts of attempted rape were then dismissed by the State. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion for a redetermination of the sentence, requesting probation on the basis of a psychiatrist\u2019s report which had been made prior to the plea of guilty. The trial court denied the motion and defendant appeals asserting: (1) The trial court erred in disregarding the psychiatrist\u2019s recommendation of probation; (2) The trial court erred in not committing defendant up to sixty days for diagnosis and recommendation pursuant to \u00a7 40A-29-15(C), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1964, Poc.Supp.1971); (3) This court should take judicial notice that no psychiatric or psychological help is available for defendant at the penitentiary.\nWe affirm.\nDefendant\u2019s first two points are controlled by the philosophy in State v. Serrano, 76 N.M. 655, 417 P.2d 795 (1966) and Ewing v. State, 80 N.M. 558, 458 P.2d 810 (Ct.App.1969). Deferring or suspending a sentence with subsequent probation \u201c * * * is not a matter of right but is an act of clemency and committed to the discretion of the trial court.\u201d The record reveals that the trial court had before it a history of defendant. We cannot say as a matter of law that the trial court abused its discretion by not adopting the report of the psychiatrist or in not requesting diagnosis and recommendation from the Department of Corrections.\nDefendant further asks us to take judicial notice that no psychiatric or psychological help is available for him at the penitentiary. Defendant cites neither source nor reference for such a proposition and we have found none in our search. Section 21-1-1(44) (d), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 1970); compare Boswell v. Rio De Oro Uranium Mines, Inc., 68 N.M. 457, 362 P.2d 991 (1961). Absent a showing that judicial notice can be taken of such asserted facts, the assertion is not a matter for judicial notice.\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSUTIN and COWAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert L. Christensen, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Winston Roberts-Hohl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fc, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "495 P.2d 388\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Thomas HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 832.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 3, 1972.\nRobert L. Christensen, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Winston Roberts-Hohl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fc, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 734,
  "last_page_order": 735
}