{
  "id": 2868941,
  "name": "Luciano TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trujillo v. State",
  "decision_date": "1977-08-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 11466",
  "first_page": "666",
  "last_page": "667",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.M. 666"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "568 P.2d 192"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1519,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.783,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1278676869081294e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5750431781930143
    },
    "sha256": "699fb96d5d836956781015a8e6362586cb6d29fc70a1b4d8440d8e8a274938e6",
    "simhash": "1:7759689596047e4d",
    "word_count": 245
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:48.706767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "McMANUS, C. J., and EASLEY, PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Luciano TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSOSA, Justice.\nDefendant Luciano Trujillo was convicted by a jury of various offenses in district court. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed. We granted certiorari.\nOn appeal defendant argues, inter alia, that the Court of Appeals improperly summarily affirmed his conviction because his memorandum in opposition to summary disposition was untimely filed. The facts indicated that defendant\u2019s appeal was assigned to the summary calendar on May 3, 1977. Notice thereof was received on May 5 by defendant\u2019s counsel. The memorandum in opposition was mailed from Albuquerque on May 13 (Friday) and filed in the Court of Appeals on Monday, May 16. Defendant argues that in this case N.M.R. Crim. App. 302(b) [\u00a7 41-23A-302(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975) ] allows an extra three days for mailing. Rule 302(b) states: \u201cAdditional Time After Service by Mail. Whenever a party is required or permitted to do an act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon him and the paper is served by mail, three [3] days shall be added to the prescribed period.\u201d Defendant\u2019s memorandum was not untimely filed.\nThe Court of Appeals\u2019 summary affirmance is reversed with directions to consider the issues raised on appeal.\nMcMANUS, C. J., and EASLEY, PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SOSA, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patricia D. Barth, Albuquerque, for petitioner.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "568 P.2d 192\nLuciano TRUJILLO, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent.\nNo. 11466.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 22, 1977.\nPatricia D. Barth, Albuquerque, for petitioner.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0666-01",
  "first_page_order": 702,
  "last_page_order": 703
}