Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chavarriagreen2 sentences2024See Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 14 . {14} We note, as did our Supreme Court in Chavarria, that there are post-judgment remedies that may be available to a defendant who claims that their sentence is the result of an error of law, as relevant here, “a defendant may be eligible to file: . . . a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his sentence is ‘illegal or in excess of the maximum authorized by law,’” Rule 5-802(A) NMRA, “. . . or a post-conviction motion on the grounds that ‘the sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution of the United States, or of the constitution or laws of 2024See Chavarria, 2009-NMSC-020, ¶ 14 . 4 {14} We note, as did our Supreme Court in Chavarria, that there are post-judgment 5 remedies that may be available to a defendant who claims that their sentence is the 6 result of an error of law, as relevant here, “a defendant may be eligible to file: . . . a 7 writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his sentence is ‘illegal or in excess of the 8 maximum authorized by law,’” Rule 5-802(A) NMRA, “. . . or a post-conviction 9 motion on the grounds that ‘the sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution 10 of the United States, or of the constitut | 2 | 3 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruengreen1 sentence2025Relying 11 on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, Defendant argued that 12 “[f]elons are not categorically excluded from the protections of the Constitution, and 13 the State cannot meet its burden to show a historical tradition of disarming felons.” 14 See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17, 24 (requiring that any challenged regulation of Second 15 Amendment conduct be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition”). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2007NMSA 1953, § 21-1-1(93); § 31-11-6. {12} Notwithstanding the fact that the remedy provided for by former Rule 93 overlapped significantly with that of a writ of habeas corpus, see Smith v. State, 79 N.M. 450, 452 , 444 P.2d 961, 963 (1968), it is clear the two were distinct. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2007NMSA 1953, § 21-1-1(93); § 31-11-6. {12} Notwithstanding the fact that the remedy provided for by former Rule 93 overlapped significantly with that of a writ of habeas corpus, see Smith v. State, 79 N.M. 450, 452 , 444 P.2d 961, 963 (1968), it is clear the two were distinct. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sanders v. United States
green
2 sentences1968Rule 93, supra, provides : “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by the laws of New Mexico claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of the Constitution or laws of New Mexico, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” In Sanders v. United States, 1968Rule 93, supra, provides : “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by the laws of New Mexico claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of the Constitution or laws of New Mexico, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” In Sanders v. United States, | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Slayton
green
2 sentences1967The last sentence of the statute reads as follows: “A failure to furnish such copy shall not affect the validity of any subsequent proceeding against the defendant if he pleads to the indictment or information.” The first part of Rule 93 reads as follows: “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court * * * claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of the Constitution or laws of New Mexico, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of th 1967The last sentence of the statute reads as follows: “A failure to furnish such copy shall not affect the validity of any subsequent proceeding against the defendant if he pleads to the indictment or information.” The first part of Rule 93 reads as follows: “A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court * * * claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of the Constitution or laws of New Mexico, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of th | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.