{
  "id": 2836549,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oliver HOVEY, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hovey",
  "decision_date": "1975-04-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 1806",
  "first_page": "398",
  "last_page": "399",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 398"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "534 P.2d 777"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 N.M. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804640
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 154",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5336372
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0154-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.M. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5367295
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "81 N.M. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5362628
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0254-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2649,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.5196131134640426e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8837262326876972
    },
    "sha256": "434093bd2a7003862467345d73b11705b0c8fbdd2783103e91c6d147137c32f8",
    "simhash": "1:67ced022312c55e9",
    "word_count": 425
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and SUTIN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oliver HOVEY, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant pled guilty to shoplifting merchandise valued at more than one hundred but less than twenty-five hundred dollars. This is a fourth degree felony. Section 40A-16-20, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6). The trial court imposed the statutory penalty for a fourth degree felony.\u2014not less than one nor more than five years in the penitentiary. Section 40A-29-3(D), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6). In addition, the sentence states: \u201cDefendant is not to be considered for parole until he has served a minimum of one (1) year.\u201d Defendant asserts the trial court had no authority to impose this limitation upon parole. We agree.\nThe fixing of penalties is a legislative function. State v. Turnbow, 81 N.M. 254, 466 P.2d 100 (1970).\nThe trial court\u2019s authority, in sentencing for a fourth degree felony, is to impose the minimum and maximum sentence provided by law. Section 40A-29-3(D), supra; State v. Romero, 73 N.M. 109, 385 P.2d 967 (1963); State v. Sisneros, 81 N.M. 194, 464 P.2d 924 (Ct.App.1970). The Legislature has not authorized judges, in imposing sentence, to limit eligibility for parole.\nThe Legislature authorized the State Board of Probation and Parole to grant paroles consistent with eligibility conditions established by the Legislature. Section 41-17-24, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6); State v. Deats, 83 N.M. 154, 489 P.2d 662 (Ct.App.1971). The third paragraph of \u00a7 41-17-24, supra, gives the judge an opportunity to express his views concerning a prospective parole \u201cbut the final decision on parole shall be of the board.\u201d\nThe provision in the judgment providing that defendant was not to be considered for parole for a minimum of one year was beyond the court\u2019s sentencing authority, is not a valid part of defendant\u2019s sentence and does not limit the authority of the State Board of Probation and Parole to consider defendant for parole. The parole limitation is to be considered only as the recommendation of the sentencing judge.\nOral argument in this case is unnecessary; the cause is submitted for decision on the briefs. A valid sentence having been imposed, the judgment and the valid sentence are affirmed. The cause is remanded with instructions to delete the unauthorized limitation upon parole. Sneed v. Cox, 74 N.M. 659, 397 P.2d 308 (1964).\nHENDLEY and SUTIN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kathryn Jones Lauer, Lauer & Lauer, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "534 P.2d 777\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oliver HOVEY, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1806.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 9, 1975.\nKathryn Jones Lauer, Lauer & Lauer, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0398-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 425
}