Case Title: State v. Moser

Citation: 456 P.2d 878, 80 N.M. 404

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1969-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
456 P.2d 878 (1969) 80 N.M. 404 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest MOSER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 8646. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 30, 1969. Manford W. Rainwater, Tucumcari, for defendant-appellant. James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Roy G. Hill, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee. HENDLEY, Judge, Court of Appeals. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual criminal. Subsequently, he applied to the district court for post-conviction relief under Rule 93 (§ 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953). Based solely on the record, a hearing on the Rule 93 motion was denied. We reversed that ruling in State v. Moser, 78 N.M. 212, 430 P.2d 106 (1967) and remanded for a hearing. The hearing has now been held, findings of fact and conclusions of law filed, relief denied and defendant appeals. The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the findings of fact made by the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. The trial court's findings are: On appeal we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the findings and if they are supported by substantial evidence they will not be disturbed on appeal. Anaya v. State, 79 N.M. 755, 449 P.2d 663 (Ct.App. 1968). We have carefully examined the briefs and the transcript and find that the trial court's findings of fact are so supported. Having so determined, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed. Compare Davis v. Padilla, 79 N.M. 753, 449 P.2d 661 (1969). It is so ordered. COMPTON and TACKETT, JJ., concur.