{
  "id": 1571057,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, a child, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Doe",
  "decision_date": "1978-04-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 3503",
  "first_page": "644",
  "last_page": "645",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.M. 644"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "578 P.2d 345"
    }
  ],
  "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": "561 P.2d 948",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2874228
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/90/0249-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 2730,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.819,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0997720922370314e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5677529848265285
    },
    "sha256": "40c2c663617ea72ece21137e3ac803d3a52fd1cc548c6275a2af38037f779d46",
    "simhash": "1:a89f8dbf5ce675fc",
    "word_count": 444
  },
  "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": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, a child, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nIn March, 1977, the child, adjudicated to be delinquent and in need of care or rehabilitation, was committed to the Department of Corrections at Springer. In January, 1978, the Department filed a petition, pursuant to \u00a7 13-14-35(F), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, pt. 1), to extend the time period of the Department\u2019s custody. The petition was granted; the child appealed.\n\u25a0 The docketing statement raised four issues, which were calendared for summary affirmance. The child\u2019s memorandum does not object to summary affirmance of three of the issues.\ny On one issue, the child asserts summary affirmance would be improper. That involves the absence of an explicit finding \u201cthat the extension is necessary to safeguard the welfare of the child or the public interest.\u201d Section 13 \u2014 14\u201435(F), supra. Our calendar assignment stated that such a finding was \u201cimplicit in the court\u2019s order in light of the request for extension set forth in the petition.\u201d The child asserts an implied finding is insufficient; that an explicit finding is required under State v. Doe, 90 'N.M. 249, 561 P.2d 948 (Ct.App.1977). We disagree.\nFirst, the trial court\u2019s order was an implicit finding that the extension was necessary. The Department\u2019s petition sought an extension of its custodial period and set out reasons why the extension was needed. The court\u2019s order reads: \u201cpetition to extend custody granted \u2014 1 yr.\u201d In light of the contents of the petition, a finding that the extension was necessary was implicit in the court\u2019s order.\nSecond, State v. Doe, supra, does not support the child\u2019s contention. In that case, there had been no finding that the child was in need of care or rehabilitation. The statute involved, \u00a7 13 \u2014 14\u201428(E), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, pt. 1) required the court to hear evidence on that issue \u201cand file its findings thereon.\u201d The language in \u00a7 13-14-35(F), supra, is not comparable, there 'being no reference to \u201cfiled\u201d findings. Section 13-14-35(F), requires the court to find that the extension is necessary. When such a finding is implicit in the court\u2019s order, the order is not erroneous because of the absence of a \u201cfiled\u201d finding. Accordingly, we need not consider the effect of the formal findings, entered subsequent to the time this appeal was taken.\nThe order extending the Department\u2019s custody is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Martha Daly, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "578 P.2d 345\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, a child, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 3503.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 11, 1978.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Martha Daly, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0644-01",
  "first_page_order": 680,
  "last_page_order": 681
}