{
  "id": 2838266,
  "name": "In the Matter of William DOE, a child, Appellant, v. STATE of New Mexico, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doe v. State",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 2106",
  "first_page": "627",
  "last_page": "629",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 N.M. 627"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "545 P.2d 93"
    }
  ],
  "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": "542 P.2d 1195",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2836476
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/88/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2836897
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0170-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3397,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.832,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0541289391192727e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5548595690327892
    },
    "sha256": "547c8c7cc8e45a51080a439762ecca605d90c7633bbb1b3a025c3b6264c5bc43",
    "simhash": "1:15d137d3b275c95f",
    "word_count": 553
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of William DOE, a child, Appellant, v. STATE of New Mexico, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThe petition in the Children\u2019s Court charged William Doe was a \u201cjuvenile delinquent\u201d in that he committed the offense of reckless driving. The matter was heard before a \u201creferee\u201d who found William \u201cguilty\u201d of the matters stated in the petition, recommended a fine of $125.00 with $100.00 suspended. The trial court approved the referee\u2019s report and adopted the referee\u2019s findings and conclusions as the order of the court. William appeals.\nWe do not reach the various procedural issues raised by William and the amicus curiae. Nor do we consider whether the order of the trial court is a valid judgment because of absence of any findings as to whether William was in need of care or rehabilitation. Section 13-14-28 (E) and (F), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp. 1973). Nor do we consider whether the Children\u2019s Court has any authority to impose a fine on a juvenile. See \u00a7 13-14-31, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp.1973).\nWe dispose of the appeal on a jurisdictional ground. \u25a0\nThe State asserts the petition was jurisdictionally defective because it does not allege that William was in need of care or rehabilitation. See In Re Doe, III, 87 N.M. 170, 531 P.2d 218 (Ct.App.1975). This argument overlooks the fact that the petition alleges William was a juvenile delinquent. This is an allegation that William was a delinquent child. Section 13-14-3(0), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp. 1973) defines delinquent child to mean a child who has committed a delinquent act and is in need of care or rehabilitation. In the Matter of Jane Doe, a Child, N.M. App., 542 P.2d 1195, decided November 12, 1975. The State\u2019s jurisdictional contention is without merit.\nThe jurisdictional defect is that, in this case, reckless driving is not a delinquent act wthin the original jurisdiction of the Children\u2019s Court. Section 13-14-3(N), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp. 1973) defines delinquent act as follows:\n\u201c \u2018delinquent act\u2019 means an act committed by a child, which would be designated as a crime under the law if committed by an adult, except for offenses under municipal traffic codes or the Motor Vehicle Code other than the following offenses when committed by a child who has not reached his fifteenth birthday: ******\n\u201c(3) reckless driving\nUnder the above-quoted provision, a delinquent act does not include reckless driving by a child who has reached his fifteenth birthday. The petition shows that William was fifteen years old at the time he drove recklessly.\nThere being no delinquent act charged, the Children\u2019s Court did not have original jurisdiction in this matter. We need not consider in which court William could have been originally charged for the alleged reckless driving. See \u00a7 13-14-45, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp.1973).\nThe order of the trial court is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Ronald Boyd, Sanchez & Boyd, P. A., Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "Chester H. Walter, Jr., Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, Appellate Defender, Theodore E. Lauer, Lauer, & Lauer, Santa Fe, for Public Defender Dept., amicus curiae.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Muxlow, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "545 P.2d 93\nIn the Matter of William DOE, a child, Appellant, v. STATE of New Mexico, Appellee.\nNo. 2106.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 6, 1976.\nJohn Ronald Boyd, Sanchez & Boyd, P. A., Santa Fe, for appellant.\nChester H. Walter, Jr., Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, Appellate Defender, Theodore E. Lauer, Lauer, & Lauer, Santa Fe, for Public Defender Dept., amicus curiae.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Muxlow, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0627-01",
  "first_page_order": 657,
  "last_page_order": 659
}