{
  "id": 2839645,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CARTER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1975-09-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 1537",
  "first_page": "435",
  "last_page": "437",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 N.M. 435"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "540 P.2d 1324"
    }
  ],
  "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": "87 N.M. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2830243
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.M. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2836931
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/88/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "401 U.S. 560",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11714156
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/401/0560-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2830075
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2824082
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2766048
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0717-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 4592,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.817,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.011112711018113e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3729339046407725
    },
    "sha256": "96eba40d6c4d17f56cd95fbe857919e7751dea49831022c06c964eea70906e47",
    "simhash": "1:d0592cb23402bdac",
    "word_count": 737
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and SUTIN, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CARTER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHERNANDEZ, Judge.\nDefendant was indicted and convicted on two counts of armed robbery in violation of Section 40A-16-2, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, Supp. 1973), and one count of rape in violation of Section 40A-9-2, N. M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, Supp. 1973). He appeals alleging two points of error. We affirm.\nDefendant\u2019s first point of error is that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment because he was not brought to trial within six months in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, \u00a7 14 of the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 37 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, \u00a7 41-23-37, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1973). Under this point defendant contends that the extension of time for commencing prosecution granted by our Supreme Court was invalid because the mandatory requirements of notice, hearing and a showing of good cause as provided by Rule 37 were not met and that this constitutes a denial of due process. Defendant further contends that the Supreme Court\u2019s consideration of such an extension constitutes a \u201ccritical state\u201d of the pre-trial proceedings and that he was entitled to representation of counsel thereat; he argues that failure to appoint counsel to represent him at this stage was also a denial of due process. A majority of the panel assigned to the appeal in this court believed that defendant\u2019s first point presented two ostensibly valid and demonstrably fundamental constitutional issues. However, a review of those issues would have involved our review of the Supreme Court\u2019s order granting the extension, and that we are prohibited from doing. Alexander v. Delgado, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973); State v. Sedillo, 86 N.M. 382, 524 P.2d 998 (Ct.App.1974). We therefore certified the appeal to the Supreme Court for its review of the procedure involved in granting the extension. State v. Carter, 87 N.M. 41, 528 P.2d 1281 (Ct.App.1974). The Supreme Court has now remanded the cause to us with directions to abide by its order granting the extension. We accordingly abide.\nDefendant\u2019s second point is that his war-rantless arrest was illegal for lack of probable cause and that, therefore, the confession obtained from him was inadmissible, \u201csince it was the fruit of the illegal arrest.\u201d\nThe defendant was arrested in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 11, 1972 at a bus station by officers from that city\u2019s police department. On April 10, 1972, a Detective Dryden of the Phoenix, Arizona police department had spoken to Sergeant Mallet of the Philadelphia department by telephone. Dryden gave Mallet the name and address of the defendant and another man and told him that the two were fugitives from charges stemming from an armed robbery which had occurred in Phoenix on April 7, 1972. Defendant contends the Philadelphia police lacked sufficient probable cause for making the arrest because the Philadelphia police had no information independent of their communications with Phoenix and that the information which the Phoenix police did supply fell short of establishing probable cause in that it set forth no ground for regarding the information reliable or credible.\nEven assuming the validity of defendant\u2019s contention, we fail to see how it might benefit his case because we believe the law is clear that the Philadelphia police were entitled to act on the Phoenix police department\u2019s request and to assume that Phoenix had probable cause for making it. Thus, the suppressibility of defendant\u2019s confession to New Mexico crimes during his detention in Philadelphia depends upon whether the Phoenix police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for crimes they thought he had committed in Arizona. Whiteley v. Warden of Wyoming Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed.2d 306 (1971); State v. Alderete, 88 N.M. 14, 536 P.2d 278 (Ct.App.1975); State v. Gorsuch, 87 N.M. 135, 529 P.2d 1256 (Ct.App.1974). Defendant has not and does not contend that the Phoenix police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant for crimes committed in Arizona.\nWe believe defendant\u2019s arrest by the Philadelphia police was lawful.\nThe judgment and sentence entered below are affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and SUTIN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HERNANDEZ, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis G. Stewart, Jr., Harry N. Relkin, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosen-thal, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "540 P.2d 1324\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1537.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 10, 1975.\nLouis G. Stewart, Jr., Harry N. Relkin, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosen-thal, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0435-01",
  "first_page_order": 465,
  "last_page_order": 467
}