Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
State v. Barton - cited by 92 documents
State v. Fines - cited by 47 documents
State v. Lujan - cited by 21 documents
State v. Sedillo - cited by 81 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. PINEDA, 1968-NMCA-080, 79 N.M. 525, 445 P.2d 749 (Ct. App. 1968)
STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
Henry PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 231
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
1968-NMCA-080, 79 N.M. 525, 445 P.2d 749
September 27, 1968
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY, REESE, JR., Judge
COUNSEL
E. Ray Phelps, Roswell, for appellant.
Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O'Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.
JUDGES
Wood, Judge. Spiess, C. J., and Oman, J., concur.
OPINION
{1} Denied{*525} post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967), defendant appeals. He contends that evidence was erroneously admitted at his trial because seized without a valid search warrant. The circumstances of this asserted illegal seizure were known to defendant at his trial. Accordingly, the question of use of illegally seized evidence is not a cognizable issue under § 21-1-1(93), supra. State v. Barton, 79 N.M. 70, 439 P.2d 719 (1968); State v. Fines, 78 N.M. 737, 437 P.2d 1006 (1968).
{2} Although defendant may not obtain a review of the seizure issue in a post-conviction proceeding, a companion case, which was a direct appeal, decided the issue on its merits. State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 289, 442 P.2d 601 (1968).
{3} The order denying relief is affirmed.
{4} It is so ordered.