{
  "id": 1571139,
  "name": "CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul CHAVEZ, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Albuquerque v. Chavez",
  "decision_date": "1978-03-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 3363",
  "first_page": "559",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.M. 559"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "577 P.2d 457"
    }
  ],
  "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. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2833190
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 N.M. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2840446
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/88/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.M. 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842073
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2823016
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0516-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 4061,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.825,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1075864842104999e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5699116048850724
    },
    "sha256": "4b8f03517acb432f8b0ca4fa979d25f723a85e67cbc9cd3d2b92b737d8817a32",
    "simhash": "1:114241429efd055b",
    "word_count": 634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul CHAVEZ, Respondent-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nCity of Albuquerque Ordinance 4.10(B) reads:\nB. Attempted operation of vehicle while under the influence. It shall be unlawful for any person under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug, other drug or any combination thereof to a degree which renders him incapable of driving safely, to start or attempt to start or operate a vehicle.\nChavez has been charged with violating the ordinance in that he was \u201casleep behind the wheel with motor running, found to be under the influence of alcohol.\u201d The municipal court held the ordinance \u201ccannot be enforced under the state law\u201d. The district court agreed; it ruled \u201cthat this ordinance is inconsistent with State law\u201d, \u00a7 40A-28-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6). We reverse, discussing: (1) Albuquerque\u2019s authority to enact the ordinance; (2) general and special laws; and (3) specific authority.\nAlbuquerque\u2019s Authority\nThe parties agree that Albuquerque is a home rule municipality and therefor has authority to enact ordinances \u201cnot expressly denied by general law or charter.\u201d N.M.Const., Art. X, \u00a7 6(D). There is no claim that the city charter prohibits enactment of the ordinance. The question is whether legislative enactments expressly limit Albuquerque\u2019s authority. Apodaca v. Wilson, 86 N.M. 516, 525 P.2d 876 (1974).\nGeneral and Special Laws\nThe municipal and district courts viewed \u00a7 40A-28-1, supra, as limiting Albuquerque\u2019s authority. That section states: \u201cNo person shall be sentenced for an attempt to commit a misdemeanor.\u201d The reasoning of the municipal and district courts was that violation of any municipal ordinance is comparable to a misdemeanor, that Ordinance 4.10(B) defines an attempted misdemeanor and, accordingly, the ordinance is invalid because \u201cexpressly denied\u201d by \u00a7 40A-28-1, supra. We need not review this reasoning.\nSection 40A-28-1, supra, is a general law. It is not applicable if a special law covers the same matter. State v. Blevins, 40 N.M. 367, 60 P.2d 208 (1936); State v. Gutierrez, 88 N.M. 448, 541 P.2d 628 (Ct.App.1975). Assuming, but not deciding, that \u00a7 40A-28-1, supra, generally prohibits attempted misdemeanors, that statute is inapplicable if another statute authorizes the alleged attempted misdemeanor in this case.\nSpecific Authority\nSection 64-15-7, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 2) reads:\nProvisions of act uniform throughout state. \u2014 The provisions of this act shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance, rule, or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this act unless expressly authorized herein. Local authorities may, however, adopt additional traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this act.\n\u201cThis act\u201d, in the above quotation, refers to Laws 1953, ch. 139, which is an act regulating traffic on highways. The last sentence of \u00a7 64-15-7, supra, specifically authorizes Albuquerque to adopt additional traffic regulations not in conflict with Laws 1953, ch. 139. See City of Las Cruces v. Davis, 87 N.M. 425, 535 P.2d 68 (Ct.App.1975).\nChavez\u2019 brief recognizes that Ordinance 4.10(B) is a part of Albuquerque\u2019s traffic code. Thus, it is a traffic regulation. The ordinance is not in conflict with Laws 1953, ch. 139. Section 64-15-7, supra, is specific authorization for the ordinance; \u00a7 40A-28-1, supra, being general, is inapplicable.\nThe order of the district court is reversed; the cause is remanded to the district court. The district court is to remand the cause to municipal court with instructions to restore the cause to the docket of that court.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert N. Thiel, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Bruce P. Moore, Albuquerque, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "577 P.2d 457\nCITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul CHAVEZ, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 3363.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 21, 1978.\nWrit of Certiorari Denied April 11, 1978.\nAlbert N. Thiel, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.\nBruce P. Moore, Albuquerque, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0559-01",
  "first_page_order": 595,
  "last_page_order": 596
}