N.M. Stat. § 31-15-10 (2026)

  A. Under the supervision and control of the chief, each district public defender shall
administer the operation of the department office within his district.

    B. The district public defender or the chief may authorize the representation of a
person who is without counsel and who is financially unable to obtain counsel when that
person is under investigation for allegedly committing murder or any other felony
criminal offense.

    C. The district public defender shall represent every person without counsel who is
financially unable to obtain counsel and who is charged in any court within the district
with any crime that carries a possible sentence of imprisonment. The representation
shall begin not later than the time of the initial appearance of the person before any
court and shall continue throughout all stages of the proceedings against him, including
any appeal, as directed by the chief.

    D. The district public defender shall represent any person within the district who is
without counsel and who is financially unable to obtain counsel in any state
postconviction proceeding.

   E. The district public defender shall notify the chief if, for any reason, he is unable to
represent a person entitled to his representation, and the chief shall make provision for
representation.

   F. The district public defender may confer with any person who is not represented
by counsel and who is being forcibly detained.

History: 1953 Comp., § 41-22A-10, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 156, § 10; 2001, ch. 34,
§ 2.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2001 amendment, effective July 1, 2001, inserted Subsection B and redesignated
the remaining subsections accordingly.

No per se conflict of interest exists when post conviction conflict division of public
defender department represents individual arguing ineffective assistance of counsel by
attorney from department's trial division, but each potential conflict must be reviewed on
case-by-case basis, and individual may waive any such conflict by knowingly and
intelligently signing waiver after proper advisement. Morales v. Bridgforth, 2004-NMSC-
034, 136 N.M. 511, 100 P.3d 668.

Construction with Indigent Defense Act. — The legislature, understanding that courts
determine indigence under the Indigent Defense Act (IDA), enacted this section of the
Public Defender Act (PDA) intending "every person without counsel who is financially
unable to obtain counsel" to include all persons who courts determine are "needy" under
the IDA. Therefore, under the administrative system of the PDA and IDA, when a court
determines that a defendant is "needy," the defendant is "financially unable to obtain
counsel" under the PDA, and thedDepartment "shall represent" the defendant pursuant
to this section, assuming the defendant is charged with a crime carrying a possible
sentence of imprisonment. State ex rel. Quintana v. Schnedar, 1993-NMSC-033, 115
N.M. 573, 855 P.2d 562.

Standards for determining indigency. — The Indigent Defense Act and the Public
Defender Act are consistent as amended: The IDA obligates courts to determine
indigence, the PDA directs the department to adopt standards for determining
indigence, and other statutes instruct courts to employ those standards. State ex rel.
Quintana v. Schnedar, 1993-NMSC-033, 115 N.M. 573, 855 P.2d 562.

Judicial procedure upon claim of conflict of interest by public defender. — If a
conflict of interest or other disqualification is claimed to exist under Subsection D (now
Subsection E), the court shall: (1) determine whether a conflict of interest or other
disqualification of the office of public defender in fact exists, (2) determine whether the
conflict or disqualification is local or statewide, (3) if the conflict or disqualification is
local, direct the chief public defender to provide a staff attorney or contract attorney from
another county or district to represent the indigent, and (4) if the conflict or
disqualification extends beyond the county or district, then the court may appoint
counsel for the indigent defendant. Richards v. Patton, 1985-NMSC-059, 103 N.M. 14,
702 P.2d 4.

No statutory right to counsel in grand jury proceedings. — Neither the Grand Jury
Act nor the Public Defender Act provides a target witness testifying before a grand jury
with a right to counsel such that an indictment must be dismissed if counsel is not
present and there is no express voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of counsel's
presence. State v. Tisthammer, 1998-NMCA-115, 126 N.M. 52, 966 P.2d 760, cert.
denied, 126 N.M. 107, 967 P.2d 447.

No blanket authorization to confer with all forcibly detained indigents. —
Subsection E (now Subsection F) is not a blanket authorization to confer with all
indigent persons who are forcibly detained, but rather authorizes the public defender to
confer with a person detained only (1) when that person has evinced a desire to consult
with an attorney or have one present during questioning in response to Miranda
warnings and law enforcement personnel have asked the defender to do so; (2) when
the defender is conducting inquiries into whether the initial appearance has been
unnecessarily delayed or attempting to have the person detained brought before the
court for such an appearance, and the district court has authorized him to do so; (3)
when authorized or directed in other circumstances by a district judge or (4) when
defending a criminal charge following the initial appearance. State v. Rascon, 1976-
NMSC-016, 89 N.M. 254, 550 P.2d 266.

Information obtained by district public defender's staff must be imputed to him.
State v. Valdez, 1980-NMSC-098, 95 N.M. 70, 618 P.2d 1234.
Municipality not required to provide representation. — Although a defendant is
entitled to be represented by counsel on the appeal of his conviction to the court of
appeals, a municipality is not required to provide for such legal representation because
the legislature has set forth a comprehensive plan to furnish counsel to qualified
criminal defendants and municipal budgetary restrictions preclude expenditures for
items not budgeted. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-04.

Duty to represent indigents in metropolitan court. — The public defender
department's scope of representation is limited statutorily to the magistrate and district
courts; the legislature has designated the Albuquerque metropolitan court as a
magistrate court. Therefore, the public defender department is obligated to represent all
indigents in the Albuquerque metropolitan court who are charged with any violation that
carries a possible penalty of imprisonment, including city code violations. 1987 Op. Att'y
Gen. No. 87-43.

Children allowed counsel prior to court appearance. — Subsection E (now
Subsection F) can be used to provide children in detention with counsel at a stage prior
to any court appearance and therefore before an attorney can be appointed. 1973 Op.
Att'y Gen. No. 73-58.

Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico law relating to evidence, see 12
N.M.L. Rev. 379 (1982).