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 Petitioner was tried for petty larceny after being found to have stolen liquor bottles. He argued that the bottles did not have "some value" as they were found empty in the trash, but evidence showed he took them when they were full and consumed them in the parking lot (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, 2017: Petitioner was convicted of petty larceny.
- New Mexico Court of Appeals, June 20, 2018: The Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support it.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, erred in determining his petition was untimely, and failed to hold an evidentiary hearing. He also sought to amend the docketing statement to include new issues (paras 1-6).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction to try the Petitioner for petty larceny.
- Whether the district court erred in determining the petition for post-sentence relief was untimely.
- Whether the district court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing on the petition.
- Whether the Petitioner should be allowed to amend the docketing statement to include new issues.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary denial of the petition for post-sentence relief (para 8).
- The Court denied the Petitioner's motion to amend the docketing statement (para 7).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Hanisee and Baca JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate reversible error regarding the district court's jurisdiction, as there was sufficient evidence of larceny when the bottles were full (para 2). The Court also held that the petition was not filed within a reasonable time, regardless of the Petitioner's claims about parole and good time reports (para 3). The Court determined that an evidentiary hearing was discretionary and not mandatory, and the Petitioner's arguments did not show an abuse of discretion by the district court (para 4). Finally, the Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement, as the new issues were either previously addressed or could have been raised in the direct appeal (para 7).