{ "id": 1573162, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Robert T. MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Montoya", "decision_date": "1980-08-29", "docket_number": "No. 12608", "first_page": "704", "last_page": "706", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 N.M. 704" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "616 P.2d 417" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "92 N.M. 734", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557172 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/92/0734-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N.M. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2825239 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/86/0484-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2768514 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2831328 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "413 P.2d 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "435" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Cal.Rptr. 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Cal.2d 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 12130173 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/64/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N.M. 749", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557261 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "758" }, { "page": "396" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/92/0749-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5337417 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560" }, { "page": "973" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "535 P.2d 1161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1164" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 Cal.Rptr. 705", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "708" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 Cal.3d 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2279711 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-3d/14/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Ariz.App. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz. App.", "case_ids": [ 1204027 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724" }, { "page": "724-725" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz-app/9/0210-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Cal. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2281228 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/20/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 P. 118", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "weight": 2, "year": 1900, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "119" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 N.M. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 11272234 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1900, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/10/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 U.S.C. \u00a7 4704", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "weight": 3, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "repealed 1971" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 494, "char_count": 7043, "ocr_confidence": 0.822, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.715676293513575e-08, "percentile": 0.45393071179053296 }, "sha256": "23bc45e9c2d4e80cf81809e0c64f140d1949267eea6b45c541f9ce609bc17d70", "simhash": "1:9113743bca1220fa", "word_count": 1189 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:16.712923+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SOSA, C. J., and EASLEY, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Robert T. MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nFELTER, Justice.\nSubsequent to his conviction of \u201cFailure to Appear\u201d, a felony, defendant-appellant, Robert T. Montoya (Montoya), was charged by supplemental information under the Habitual Offender Act. Montoya was found by the jury to be a four-time convicted felon and sentenced to life imprisonment, from which sentence he appeals to this Court. We affirm.\nThe two questions to be decided on appeal are (1) whether one of the felony convictions relied on by the State, a Federal conviction (in New Mexico) for Illegal Purchase of Heroin, 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 4704(a) (1964) (repealed 1971), constitutes a felony under the laws of New Mexico for purposes of the Habitual Offender Act, and (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, fingerprint cards purportedly of Montoya.\nBy order entered on September 7, 1978, the trial judge found that purchase of heroin contrary to 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 4704(a), would not be a crime under the laws of the State of New Mexico, and therefore struck Count 3 of the Supplemental Information. Upon an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding and order which struck the allegation of the prior federal conviction. A petition for certiorari was filed and denied by this Court on May 1, 1979. The case proceeded to trial after mandate from the Court of Appeals on May 2, 1979.\nIt is now the law of this case that purchase of heroin contrary to 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 4704(a) is a crime, which, if committed within this state would be a felony under the laws of New Mexico. The decision of the Court of Appeals to that effect is final, certiorari having been denied and a mandate issued.\nIn its decision, this Court in Crary v. Field, 10 N.M. 257, 61 P. 118 (1900) quoted with approval from the case of Phelan v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 39, 45, as follows:\n\u201cA previous ruling by the Appellate Court upon a point distinctly made may be only authority in other cases, to be followed and affirmed, or to be modified or overruled according to its intrinsic merits, but in the case in which it is made it is more than authority; it is a final adjudication, from the consequences of which the court cannot depart, nor the parties relieve themselves.\u201d\nId. 10 N.M. at 264, 61 P. at 119.\nThat the determination was made by the New Mexico Court of Appeals, and not this Court, is of no consequence.\nGenerally, the final decision of an intermediate appellate court, when not reviewed or otherwise set aside by an appellate court of higher authority, has the same finality as a decision of the highest court.\nTucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court, 9 Ariz.App. 210, 450 P.2d 722, 724 (1969).\nThe rule applies even though the subsequent appeal comes before this court whereas the prior appeals were before Courts of Appeal.\nDavies v. Krasna, 14 Cal.3d 502, 121 Cal.Rptr. 705, 708, 535 P.2d 1161, 1164 (footnote 4) (1975).\n\u201cThe doctrine of law of the case has long been recognized in New Mexico, since before statehood * * * and since after statehood.\u201d Ute Park Summer Homes Ass\u2019n. v. Maxwell Land G. Co., 83 N.M. 558, 560, 494 P.2d 971, 973 (1972).\nDemers v. Gerety, 92 N.M. 749, 758, 595 P.2d 387, 396 (Ct.App.1978).\nAnd there is good reason for the Court\u2019s adherence to the doctrine:\nThe function of courts is to put an end to litigation. If final decisions, whether they be of the trial court, when there has been no appeal, or that of an intermediate court, when there has been no review granted, are not given this finality, then the prime goal of the judicial process will be proportionately defeated.\nTucson Gas & Electric, supra, 450 P.2d at 724-725.\n[T]he need for attributing finality to considered judicial determinations compels adherence to the previous decision.\nPeople v. Durbin, 64 Cal.2d 474, 50 Cal.Rptr. 657, 659, 413 P.2d 433, 435 (1966).\nThe fate of the defendant in the case at bar does not rest upon the doctrine of the law of the case. Independently of that doctrine his conviction should be affirmed. Application of the law of the case to the issue before us does no violence to justice in this case. The Federal conviction was had in New Mexico upon a purchase of heroin in New Mexico. \u201cPurchase\u201d is defined in Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1966), \u201cto get into one\u2019s possession: gain, acquire; to obtain by paying money or its equivalent.\u201d The same dictionary defines \u201cacquire\u201d as \u201cto come into possession, control or power of disposal of, often by some uncertain or unspecified means.\u201d\n\u201cPurchase\u201d, \u201cacquire\u201d and \u201cpossession\u201d are not words of art or legal terms, but are generic. They should be given their usual and customary meanings. Accordingly, the \u201cpurchase\u201d of heroin necessarily includes the actual or constructive \u201cpossession\u201d of heroin, and actual or constructive possession of heroin is a felony under the laws of New Mexico. Sections 30-31-6 (Schedule I(B)(10) and 30-31-23(A) and (B)(5), N.M.S.A. (1978); State v. Bowers, 87 N.M. 74, 529 P.2d 300 (Ct.App.1974); State v. Montoya, 85 N.M. 126, 509 P.2d 893 (Ct.App.1973). See State v. Bauske, 86 N.M. 484, 525 P.2d 411 (Ct.App.1974).\nCorrections Officer Ralph Gonzales testified without dispute that on May 15, 1979 he: (1) personally took the defendant\u2019s fingerprints, on State\u2019s Exhibit 8; (2) saw the defendant sign his name thereon (\u201cRobert T. Montoya\u201d); (3) signed his own name thereon (\u201cRalph Gonzales\u201d); and (4) took the defendant\u2019s photograph and attached it to State\u2019s Exhibit 8. Gonzales also testified that there were no changes or alterations to the card or the material thereon except for the addition of the initials \u201cVC\u201d and the date \u201c5/16/79\u201d written thereon by someone other than Gonzales, and he further identified the defendant as the person from whom he obtained the fingerprints on State\u2019s Exhibit 8 and whose picture he attached to the exhibit on May 15, 1979.\nThe next witness, Vince Capella (initials \u201cVC\u201d) testified that he personally examined the State\u2019s Exhibit 8 and compared the fingerprint impressions thereon with fingerprint records of the defendant admitted into evidence with the defendant\u2019s prior convictions and prison records, and found them to be identical.\nThe fact that Ralph Gonzales had handed State\u2019s Exhibit 8 to another corrections officer, attached to another sheet, and that he did not know who put the initials \u201cVC\u201d and the date \u201c5/16/79\u201d on the card are of no consequence in view of the evidence presented and the law applicable thereto as set forth above. State\u2019s Exhibit 8 was admissible and Montoya\u2019s claim of error as to its admission is without merit.\nThe judgment and sentence are affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nSOSA, C. J., and EASLEY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "FELTER, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "G. Hank Farrah, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.", "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., James F. Blackmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ira Robinson, Dist. Atty., Jeffrey Romero, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albuquerque, for petitioner." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "616 P.2d 417\nSTATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Robert T. MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 12608.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 29, 1980.\nSee also 92 N.M. 734, 594 P.2d 1190.\nG. Hank Farrah, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., James F. Blackmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ira Robinson, Dist. Atty., Jeffrey Romero, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albuquerque, for petitioner." }, "file_name": "0704-01", "first_page_order": 740, "last_page_order": 742 }