Apodaca v. State, 500 P.2d 742 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Apodaca v. State, 500 P.2d 742 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Gillihan (2×)
N.M. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Apodaca v. State, 84 N.M. 172 , 500 P.2d 742 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Clark, 84 N.M. 150 , 500 P.2d 435 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Lee, 83 N.M. 655 , 495 P.2d 1102 (Ct.App.1972); Andrada v. State, 83 N.M. 393 , 492 P.2d 1010 (Ct.App.1971).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Martinez (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Apodaca v. State, 84 N.M. 172 , 500 P.2d 742 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Beachum, 83 N.M. 526 , 494 P.2d 188 (Ct.App.1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Willie APODACA
v.
STATE of New Mexico
No. 947.
New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Aug 11, 1972.
500 P.2d 742
Stanley F. Frost, Tucumcari, for appellant., David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Frank N. Chavez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.
Cowan, Hendley, Wood.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

COWAN, Judge.

Defendant appeals from an order denying, without a hearing, a “Petition For A Rule 93”, filed pursuant to Rule 93 [§ 21 — 1— 1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4)]. His conviction for aggravated assault was affirmed by this court in State v. Apodaca, 81 N.M. 580, 469 P.2d 729 (Ct.App.1970).

We affirm.

Defendant argues that his constitutional rights were violated because the state failed to introduce into evidence the weapon with which the alleged assault was committed.

This was a matter which should have been submitted to this court for its consideration on direct appeal. Proceedings under Rule 93 are not intended as a substitute for an appeal as a means for correcting errors which may have occurred during the course of the trial nor as a method by which one can obtain consideration of questions which might have been raised on appeal. State v. Beachum, 83 N.M. 526, 494 P.2d 188 (Ct.App.1972).

The order denying relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.