AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with and convicted of burglary, a crime enacted by the New Mexico Legislature in 1963. The Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his petition for relief from judgment, arguing a discrepancy in the citation of the law under which he was convicted.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean Jr., District Judge, July 3, 2012: The district court denied the Defendant's petition for relief from judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued in favor of affirming the district court's denial of the Defendant's petition for relief from judgment.
• Appellant (Roger Gresham): Argued that there was a discrepancy in the citation of the law under which he was convicted, claiming he was convicted under a different section than the one originally enacted in 1963.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's petition for relief from judgment based on the argument of a discrepancy in the citation of the law under which he was convicted.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's petition for relief from judgment.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., concurred by Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge: The Court found the Defendant's argument regarding the discrepancy in the citation of the law under which he was convicted to be unpersuasive. The Court clarified that the crime of burglary, for which the Defendant was convicted, was indeed enacted in 1963, as indicated by the original and amended citations (§ 16-3 and § 40A-16-3, respectively). The Court explained that the citation to New Mexico Laws in their calendar notice was to show the original source of enactment, and that after enactment, laws are compiled in a manner that gathers laws on the same subject together, which in this case was Section 40A from 1963 to 1978. The Court affirmed the district court's decision for these reasons.