From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. McAfee

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Oct 31, 1969
80 N.M. 739 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

No. 357.

October 31, 1969.

Appeal from the District Court, Eddy County, Caswell S. Neal, J.

James F. Warden, Carlsbad, for appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Oliver H. Miles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


OPINION


Defendant's conviction and sentence was affirmed in State v. McAfee, 78 N.M. 108, 428 P.2d 647 (1967). Subsequently, he moved for post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1969). The trial court held that matters raised by this motion were decided adversely to defendant in the prior appeal. Defendant now appeals from the order denying his motion.

The trial court correctly ruled that each of the claims made in the post-conviction motion were considered and decided in defendant's prior appeal. Issues raised and decided on a prior appeal may not be relitigated in post-conviction proceedings. Defendant is not entitled to a successive determination on the merits of the same issues. Nance v. State, 80 N.M. 123, 452 P.2d 192 (Ct.App. 1969).

The order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. McAfee

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Oct 31, 1969
80 N.M. 739 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

State v. McAfee

Case Details

Full title:STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monroe McAFEE…

Court:Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Date published: Oct 31, 1969

Citations

80 N.M. 739 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)
460 P.2d 1023

Citing Cases

State v. Minns

The Supreme Court and this court have uniformly held that a Rule 93 motion may not be used to reconsider…

Patterson v. State

Petitioner is not entitled to a successive determination on the merits of issues previously adjudicated.…