Doe v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Montoya

    93 N.M. 346 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant recognizes that the Children's Court lacked jurisdiction over the D.W.I., reckless driving, and vehicular homicide offenses. Sections 32-1-3(N) and 32-1-48, N.M.S.A. 1978; Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 627, 545 P.2d 93 (Ct.App. 1976). Because the Children's Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, defendant does not claim that the D.W.I., reckless driving, and vehicular homicide charges in the indictment were barred by Children's Court proceedings involving those charges.

  2. State v. Doe

    90 N.M. 776 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 8 times

    Vol. 3, pt. 1, 1976). Cf. Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 627, 545 P.2d 93 (Ct.App. 1976). However, had the crime been committed by an adult, jurisdiction would have been in the magistrate court.

  3. State v. Doe

    90 N.M. 249 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 14 times
    In State v. Doe, 90 N.M. 249, 561 P.2d 948 (Ct.App. 1977), this court stated: "The order placing the child on probation being void, the situation is as if no probation order had been entered.

    Although the child committed delinquent acts, there was no finding that the child was in need of care or rehabilitation, or a finding that the child was a delinquent child. See Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 627, 545 P.2d 93 (Ct.App. 1976). The Children's Court lacked authority to order the diagnostic evaluation.