Case Title: State v. Eckles

Citation: 441 P.2d 36, 79 N.M. 138

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1968-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
441 P.2d 36 (1968) 79 N.M. 138 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry ECKLES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 8405. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 20, 1968. Peter M. McDevitt, Gallup, for appellant. Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Paul J. Lacy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee. CHAVEZ, Chief Justice. By criminal information filed in the district court of McKinley County, appellant was charged as follows: On November 8, 1965, appellant appeared before the district court, accompanied by *37 his attorney, and entered a plea of guilty to counts I and III. Count II was dismissed. Appellant was sentenced under count I to a period of not less than two nor more than ten years in the State Penitentiary and, under count III, he was sentenced to a period of not less than one nor more than five years, the sentences to run consecutively, with the sentence under count I to be served first. On March 22, 1966, appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence under Rule 93 (§ 21-1-1(93). N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., 1967 Pocket Supp.). On September 2, 1966, appellant filed an amended petition for relief under Rule 93, together with a supplemental petition for relief and a motion to vacate the hearing set for September 20, 1966, in Santa Fe and to reset the hearing in McKinley County. On October 10, 1966, the district court rendered its decision, made findings of fact and concluded that appellant was lawfully committed and not entitled to relief under Rule 93, supra. An order denying appellant's motion for relief was entered on the same day, from which order this appeal was prosecuted. Appellant's first point reads: Appellant seems to contend that both the charge of armed robbery, contrary to § 40A-16-2, supra, and the charge of unlawful taking of a vehicle, contrary to § 64-9-4(a), supra, arose out of the same transaction, were committed at the same time as part of a continous act, and were inspired by the same criminal intent. Thus he argues that the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court constitute double punishment. State v. McAfee, 78 N.M. 108, 428 P.2d 647 (1967); State v. Blackwell, 76 N.M. 445, 415 P.2d 563 (1966); State v. Quintana, 69 N.M. 51, 364 P.2d 120 (1961). This contention is taken from language used in the above-cited cases. In State v. McAfee, supra, we said that State v. Quintana, supra, "states that the rule for determining a merger is set forth in Commonwealth ex. rel. Moszczynski v. Ashe, 343 Pa. 102, 21 A.2d 920," as follows: Section 40A-16-2, supra, defines robbery as follows: Section 64-9-4(a), supra, provides: In State v. Martinez, 77 N.M. 745, 427 P.2d 260 (1967), we stated: It is true that a charge of larceny is necessarily included in a charge of robbery. State v. Martinez, supra; State v. Quintana, supra. However, a charge of a violation of § 64-9-4(a), supra, is not necessarily included in a charge of larceny and, thus, also is not necessarily included in a charge of robbery. The criminal intent required by the crime of larceny is the intent to deprive the owner of his property permanently. People v. Pillsbury, 59 Cal. App. 2d 107, 138 P.2d 320 (1943); People v. Tellez, 32 Cal. App. 2d 217, 89 P.2d 451 (1939); Fletcher v. State, 231 Md. 190, 189 A.2d 641 (1963); Kovero v. Hudson Ins. Co. of New York, 192 Minn. 10, 255 N.W. 93 (1934); People v. Stanley, 349 Mich. 362, 84 N.W.2d 787 (1957); Eiswirth Const. & Equipment Co. v. Glenn Falls Ins Co., 241 Mo. App. 713, 240 S.W.2d 973 (1951); Smart v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 639, 32 S.W.2d 197 (1930). However, a violation of § 64-9-4(a), supra, does not require this intent and a conviction under this section may be had without the presence of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. Thus, the test of State v. Quintana, supra, is not met. See also, State v. Parsons, 70 Ariz. 399, 222 P.2d 637 (1950); Hutchins v. State, 167 Tex.Cr. R. 595, 321 S.W.2d 880 (1959). The unlawful taking of a vehicle in violation of § 64-9-4(a), supra, as charged in count III of the information, was not a necessary ingredient of the offense of robbery committed by the theft of monies by use or threatened use of force and violence, as charged in count I of the information. Appellant committed two separate and distinct criminal offenses, and the fact that they were committed on the same day, or even that one succeeded the other as part of one episode of criminal activity, did not cause them to merge. Appellant was convicted of each offense upon his plea of guilty thereto. People v. Keboe, 33 Cal. 2d 711, 204 P.2d 321 (1949), cert. denied 338 U.S. 834, 70 S. Ct. 39, 94 L. Ed. 509, cited by appellant, is not applicable. Appellant next contends that the trial court erred by holding the Rule 93 hearing in Santa Fe in violation of the venue requirements of Art. II § 14, New Mexico Constitution, and § 40A-1-15, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. Article II, § 14, of our Constitution, provides in part: The pertinent portion of § 40A-1-15, supra, provides: The case relied upon by appellant, Peisker v. Chavez, 46 N.M. 159, 123 P.2d 726 (1942), considered and discussed the place of trial or prosecution and is not in point. In Thomas v. Mills, 117 Ohio St. 114, 157 N.E. 488, 54 A.L.R. 1220 (1927), the Supreme Court of Ohio construed Art. I, § 10, of the Ohio Constitution, which is nearly identical to Art. II, § 14, of the New Mexico Constitution, and said: At the time of the hearing on appellant's motion under Rule 93 in Santa Fe, appellant moved that the hearing be vacated and reset for hearing in McKinley County. The trial court, as reason for denying the motion, stated: Neither the constitutional nor the statutory provisions cited by appellant are applicable, because a Rule 93 hearing is neither a criminal trial nor a criminal prosecution. It is a civil proceeding. State v. Weddle, 77 N.M. 420, 423 P.2d 611 (1967). All the criminal proceedings against appellant were properly taken in the county in which the crimes were committed. As to the venue under Rule 93, this court has held that, since we adopted Rule 93 from 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, the interpretation on that section by the federal courts is persuasive of the meaning of the identical rule adopted by us. State v. Weddle, supra. In Hamby v. United States, (D.C.W.D. Mo. 1963), 217 F. Supp. 318, the District Court for the Western District of Missouri, noted: In State v. Brinkley, 78 N.M. 39, 428 P.2d 13 (1967), this court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a judge to have a convicted person present for the hearing on a motion under Rule 93. If appellant did not have a right to be present at the hearing, a fortiori he had no right to be heard in a particular place, absent a showing of prejudice. At no time during the Rule 93 hearing did appellant or counsel for appellant contend that appellant was prejudiced because the hearing was held in Santa Fe. It follows from what has been said that the order denying relief under Rule 93 should be affirmed. It is so ordered. NOBE, J., and OMAN, J., Court of Appeal, concur.