{
  "id": 1582488,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda Elizabeth SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sandoval",
  "decision_date": "1982-05-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 5513",
  "first_page": "417",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.M. 417"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "649 P.2d 485"
    }
  ],
  "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": "78 N.M. 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321896
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N.M. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1577311
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/96/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2771166
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.M. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842161
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1953,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/57/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.M. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2830781
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/87/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2806604
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 408,
    "char_count": 6474,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4103254668515423
    },
    "sha256": "7299b766aabee1e2000daa8146272910d38157f46629307a0ab16cc777910b56",
    "simhash": "1:167fd6e3b15dd5a3",
    "word_count": 1010
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:49.367595+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LOPEZ and NEAL, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda Elizabeth SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWALTERS, Chief Judge.\nDefendant was convicted in Magistrate Court of prostitution, in violation of \u00a7 30-9-2, N.M.S.A.1978. After a trial de novo in the district court on appeal, defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to sixty days in the San Juan County Jail.\nDefendant frames two issues in this appeal, as follows:\nI. Whether the different standards used in the Prostitution [\u00a7 30-9-2, supra] and Patronizing Statutes [\u00a7 30-9-3, N.M.S.A.1978] violate the equal protection of the defendant where all prostitutes are female and all customers are male.\nII. Whether the sheriff\u2019s office engages in discriminatory enforcement of [\u00a7] 30-9-2 [N.M.S.A.1978] and [\u00a7] 30-9-3 [N.M.S.A.1978] in violation of defendant\u2019s equal protection.\n1. We answer defendant's second point first. She does not challenge the court\u2019s Findings of Fact; She appears to attack Conclusion 3 & 4:\n3. That the San Juan County Sheriff\u2019s Department does not make arbitrary discrimination between male and female in the enforcement of Section 30-9-2, N.M.S.A.1978.\n4. That Section 30-9-2, N.M.S.A.1978, does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Equal Rights Amendment of the New Mexico Constitution.\nThe record does not show that any proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law were filed by defendant; nor does it or the transcript disclose any motions made by the defendant to dismiss the charges based upon constitutional grounds, or any motion or request for amended or different Conclusions of Law from which she now apparently appeals. At trial, however, the defendant informed the court of her theory, i.e., that \u00a7 30-9-2, supra, violates the equal protection clause of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions and, specifically, the New Mexico Equal Rights Amendment, N.M.Const., art. II, \u00a7 18. Even though the trial court was alerted to defendant\u2019s constitutional attack upon the statutes, in the absence of requested findings and conclusions submitted by appellant, and no attack upon the trial court\u2019s findings on appeal, the reviewing court is bound by conclusions of law which are supported by the findings of fact made. Cooper v. Bank of New Mexico, 77 N.M. 398, 423 P.2d 431 (1967).\nEven so, we have reviewed the relatively short record in this case and are satisfied that the evidence supports Finding No. 7, which supports Conclusion 3.\n2. At the time of the offense, the challenged statutes read:\n30-9-2. Prostitution.\nProstitution consists of knowingly engaging in or offering to engage in sexual intercourse for hire.\nWhoever commits prostitution is guilty of a petty misdemeanor, unless such crime is a second or subsequent conviction, in which case such person is guilty of a misdemeanor.\n30-9-3. Patronizing prostitutes.\nPatronizing prostitutes consists of:\nA. entering or remaining in a house of prostitution with intent to engage in sexual intercourse with a prostitute; or\nB. knowingly hiring a prostitute to engage in sexual intercourse. Whoever commits patronizing prostitutes is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.\nDefendant was found to have prior convictions under \u00a7 30-9-2, supra, and, therefore, was convicted of a misdemeanor.\n(a) Both \u00a7\u00a7 30-9-2 and 30-9-3, supra, are gender neutral on their face. Either males or females could be arrested and convicted under either statute.\nAccording to the only New Mexico case interpreting our Equal Rights Amendment, supra, if a statute treats all persons alike, regardless of sex, it does not violate the provisions of N.M.Const. art. II, \u00a7 18. Schaab v. Schaab, 87 N.M. 220, 531 P.2d 954 (1974). In State v. Thompson, 57 N.M. 459, 463, 260 P.2d 370 (1953), the court considered the claim of equal protection of a legislative enactment and said:\nIf it makes no arbitrary or unreasonable distinction within the sphere of its operation and accords substantially equal and uniform treatment to all persons similarly situated, the law complies with the equality provision.\n(b) Defendant complains, under this point, that the different elements of the statutes, and the fact that \u00a7 30-9-3, supra, does not have an enhancement provision, but only a petty misdemeanor penalty, violates her equal protection. The two statutes in question sanction two different activities and consequently would require different elements. Section 30-9-2 prohibits prostitution, while \u00a7 30-9-3 prohibits the patronizing of prostitutes. Defendant was arrested and convicted under \u00a7 30-9-2, supra. She appears to argue that because the legislature has not enhanced the acts of a customer of a prostitute, the prostitute\u2019s equal protection is violated.\nThe power to define crimes is a legislative function. State v. Grijalva, 85 N.M. 127, 509 P.2d 894 (Ct.App.1973). The seller is more strictly controlled and more severely punished in several criminal statutes. See and compare, \u00a7 30-31-21, N.M.S.A. 1978 [1980 Repl.Pamph.], distribution of marijuana to a minor, a third degree felony for a first offense; \u00a7 30-31-22, N.M.S.A. 1978 [1980 Repl.Pamph.], distribution of marijuana to other than minors, a fourth degree felony for first offense; \u00a7 30-31-22(B)(1), N.M.S.A.1978 [1980 Repl.Pamph.], possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, a petty misdemeanor. The legislature clearly intended to impose greater penalties on the seller of a controlled substance than upon the user. It is likewise within the power of the legislature to establish the criminal penalty to be imposed for any specific criminal activity. State v. Mabry, 96 N.M. 317, 630 P.2d 269 (1981).\nDefendant\u2019s constitutional argument based upon those differences in the two statutes is not well taken.\n(c) Finally, defendant has no standing to complain of unequal enforcement of \u00a7 30-9-3, supra, a statute she was not charged with or convicted under. State v. Hines, 78 N.M. 471, 432 P.2d 827 (1967).\nDefendant\u2019s premise that \u201call prostitutes are female and all customers are male\u201d is incorrect; her claim of unconstitutionality in the \u201cdifferent standards\u201d of the two section is without merit.\nThe conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.\nLOPEZ and NEAL, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALTERS, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Carol Vigil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "George A. Harrison, Harrison & O\u2019Loughlin, P. A., Farmington, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "649 P.2d 485\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda Elizabeth SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 5513.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 13, 1982.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Carol Vigil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.\nGeorge A. Harrison, Harrison & O\u2019Loughlin, P. A., Farmington, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0417-01",
  "first_page_order": 455,
  "last_page_order": 457
}