Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Mabrey

88 N.M. 227 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Mabrey

9 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Chavez

    CR 15-3557 JB (D.N.M. Sep. 1, 2023)

    N.M.S.A. § 30-31-20(A)(3) (emphasis added). See State v. Reams, 1981-NMCA-158, ¶ 2, 98 N.M. 372, 648 P.2d 1185 (concluding that quaalude is not a narcotic drug under the Controlled Substances Act); State v. Mabrey, 1975-NMCA-098, ¶ 6, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617 (concluding that marijuana similarly is not a narcotic drug). Psilocybin is a Schedule I drug included in the list of scheduled hallucinogenic substances.

  2. State v. Rodriguez

    138 N.M. 21 (N.M. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the crimes of general larceny and theft of a credit card were different crimes as they were located in two separate statutes and concluding that the Legislature intended to punish each crime independently from the other

    The jurisdictional exception was later applied in a number of New Mexico cases. E.g., Trujillo v. State, 79 N.M. 618, 619, 447 P.2d 279, 280 (1968); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 298, 414 P.2d 512, 517 (1966); State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 228-29, 539 P.2d 617, 618-19 (Ct.App. 1975). {10} Defendant argues that Goodson, as well as the jurisdictional portion of Diaz, is inconsistent with more recent Supreme Court authority.

  3. State v. Muniz

    129 N.M. 649 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 6 times
    Remanding and giving the defendant the option to accept an adult sentence, thereby waiving his right to an amenability determination

    "[W]here a defendant is not charged with a public offense, proceedings after a plea to that non-charge does [sic] not place a defendant in jeopardy." State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 229, 539 P.2d 617, 619 (Ct.App. 1975) (citing State v. Ferguson, 56 N.M. 398, 244 P.2d 783 (1952); State v. Ardovino, 55 N.M. 161, 228 P.2d 947 (1951); State v. Valdez, 51 N.M. 393, 185 P.2d 977 (1947)). Similarly, agreeing to be sentenced as an adult for a crime specifically defined as a delinquent act should be of no effect.

  4. State v. Crews

    110 N.M. 723 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that variation between an indictment and proof to a jury is not material where the allegations and proof substantially correspond

    1984); 30-42-4. See also State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617 (Ct.App. 1975) (defendant may not be punished for a crime without a sufficient charge having been filed, even where defendant voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court). The fact that Whitfield Bus Lines, Inc. was named in the charge as the affected enterprise did not constitute a charge of racketeering against the corporate defendant.

  5. State v. Price

    104 N.M. 703 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that a district court is in the best position to determine whether an improper expression of opinion is on its face prejudicial or too equivocal to require a new trial

    Because attempted felony murder was not a proper charge, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Count I. State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617 (Ct.App. 1975). Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, there is no basis for a claim of double jeopardy.

  6. State v. Johnson

    103 N.M. 364 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that attempted depraved-mind murder is a "logical impossibility"

    Being a proper charge, jurisdiction was conferred on the court. Cf. State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617 (Ct.App. 1975). When the jury was impaneled and sworn to try the case, jeopardy attached on the charge.

  7. State v. Jacobs

    102 N.M. 801 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 43 times
    Vacating sentence for dangerous use of explosives because conviction of aggravated burglary was established upon almost identical facts

    Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue, 78 N.M. 78, 428 P.2d 617 (1966). On the merits see State v. Manzanares, 100 N.M. 621, 674 P.2d 511 (1983); State v. Tanton, 88 N.M. 333, 540 P.2d 813 (1975); Owens v. Abram, 58 N.M. 682, 274 P.2d 630 (1954); State v. Barela, 95 N.M. 349, 622 P.2d 254 (Ct.App. 1980); State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617 (Ct.App. 1975). CLAIMED MERGER OF AGGRAVATED BURGLARY AND DANGEROUS USE OF EXPLOSIVES

  8. State v. Velasquez

    99 N.M. 109 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 8 times
    Noting that "the defendant has a difficult burden to show prejudice" in making out a case of prosecutorial misconduct in the grand jury context

    Defendant asserts his motion to dismiss was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court; from the cases cited in support of this argument, defendant uses "jurisdiction" in the sense of a sufficient charge for there to be a pending cause. See State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617 (Ct.App. 1975). The indictment charged an offense in accordance with R.Crim.Proc. 5.

  9. State v. Montoya

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

    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. State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 539 P.2d 617 (Ct.App. 1975); see State v. Peavler, 88 N.M. 125, 537 P.2d 1387 (1975). Defendant's contention is that the prosecution of the three charges in the indictment was barred, under double jeopardy concepts, because of the Children's Court proceedings involving the involuntary manslaughter allegation.