N.M. Stat. § 31-16-8 (2026)

A. Payments of costs, expenses and attorney fees under the Indigent Defense Act
shall be made from:

      (1)      funds appropriated to the supreme court with respect to habeas corpus
matters initiated in that court; and

      (2)    funds appropriated to the district court with respect to all stages of
proceedings initiated in the district court.

    B. The court assigning counsel under the Indigent Defense Act shall pay costs,
including the costs of transcripts where appropriate, shall reimburse counsel for direct
expenses the court determines to have been properly incurred by him and shall pay to
counsel fees:

       (1)    for services in magistrate courts and district courts where the proceedings
are terminated prior to trial in the district court, a sum fixed by the court at not less than
one dollar ($1.00) nor more than three hundred dollars ($300);

        (2)    for services in magistrate courts and district courts which include trial in
the district court and, where appropriate, filing notice of appeal, a sum fixed by the court
at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than four hundred dollars ($400);

        (3)     for services in postconviction remedy proceedings in the district court, a
sum fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than one hundred
fifty dollars ($150);

        (4)  for services in prosecuting any appeal or review in the court of appeals or
the supreme court, a sum fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more
than five hundred dollars ($500);

       (5)    for services in habeas corpus proceedings in the supreme court, a sum
fixed by the court at not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than one hundred fifty
dollars ($150); and
         (6)   for services in any case involving a capital offense, a sum fixed by the
court.

History: 1953 Comp., § 41-22-8, enacted by Laws 1968, ch. 69, § 65.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

The district court has no authority to order the New Mexico Public Defender
Department to pay expert witness fees on behalf of an indigent defendant who is
represented by pro bono private counsel. Subin v. Ulmer, 2001-NMCA-105, 131 N.M.
350, 36 P.3d 441.

Statutory fee not violative of constitutional rights. — Defendant's argument that the
statutory attorney fee limitation of $400 in defense of indigent criminal cases was a
denial of equal protection and due process was without merit where there was no claim
that the defendant was poorly represented, nor were there any facts indicating how the
statutory fee limitation so deprived the defendant. State v. Silver, 1971-NMCA-112, 83
N.M. 1, 487 P.2d 910.

Constitutionality of flat-fee arrangements for indigent defense contract counsel.
— Where the New Mexico legislature, in its 2015 general appropriation to the law office
of the public defender (LOPD), specifically provided that the appropriations to the public
defender department shall not be used to pay hourly reimbursement rates to contract
attorneys, the district court erred in entering an order requiring the LOPD to pay contract
counsel hourly rates and the state to provide additional funding, nullifying the
legislature’s prohibition of the payment of hourly rates to indigent defense contract
counsel as violative of the federal and state constitutions, based on its conclusion that
the flat-fee rates paid to contract counsel by the LOPD contravene the constitutional
guarantee of effective assistance of counsel; an indigent criminal defendant who is
represented by contract counsel who is compensated under a flat-fee arrangement
does not necessarily receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Kerr v. Parsons, 2016-
NMSC-028.

Legislature may appropriate additional funds. — Language in Subsection A (2)
providing that expenses under the Indigent Defense Act are to be paid from "funds
appropriated to the district court with respect to all stages of proceedings initiated in the
district court" does not prevent the legislature from appropriating additional funds for
expenses in indigent cases. State v. Duran, 1977-NMCA-091, 91 N.M. 35, 570 P.2d 36,
cert. denied, 91 N.M. 3, 569 P.2d 413, 435 U.S. 972, 98 S. Ct. 1615, 56 L. Ed. 2d 65
(1978).

Indigent Defense Act does not provide for payment of advances. State v. Frazier,
1973-NMCA-127, 85 N.M. 545, 514 P.2d 302.

Motion for advancement of funds for investigator properly denied. — Defendant's
motion for a prior advancement of funds for a professional investigator was properly
denied as an expenditure is clearly not required in every case and need not be provided
unless the necessity is shown. State v. Frazier, 1973-NMCA-127, 85 N.M. 545, 514
P.2d 302.

Indigent defendant represented by pro bono counsel is constitutionally entitled to
public funding for expert witness fees, provided that the expert witness meets all of the
standards promulgated by the Public Defender Department. Constitutional right to be
provided with basic tools of an adequate defense is not contingent upon the
appointment of counsel by the Public Defender Department. State v. Brown, 2006-
NMSC-023, 139 N.M. 466, 134 P.3d 753.

Attorney fees for jointly charged defendants. — The court may pay the appointed
attorney for the defense of each jointly charged defendant, jointly tried the same as
though a severance had been effected and separate trials had. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No.
66-27.

Transcript for habeas corpus petitioner. — The laws of this state and the holdings of
the supreme court of the United States do not require more being furnished than is
necessary to effectively pursue the remedy sought, and one copy of the transcript,
furnished to either the habeas corpus petitioner or his attorney, is adequate for this
purpose. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-66.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Construction of state statutes providing
for compensation of attorney for services under appointment by court in defending
indigent accused, 18 A.L.R.3d 1074.

Right of attorney appointed by court for indigent accused to, and court's power to award,
compensation by public, in absence of statute or court rule, 21 A.L.R.3d 819.

Validity and construction of state statute or court rule fixing maximum fees for attorney
appointed to represent indigent, 3 A.L.R.4th 576.

Right of indigent criminal defendant to polygraph test at public expense, 11 A.L.R.4th
733.