Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02162/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PETE MONDRAGON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

~Ia 2 7 19§0 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-2162 

STATE. OF NEW MEXICO, 

Respondent-Appellee . 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-197-M} 

(District of New Mexico} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner is an inmate at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility and is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the State District Court. He filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus based on a single issue: that he is entitled to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2162 Document: 01019964523 Date Filed: 02/27/1990 Page: 1 
credit against his sentence for time he spent free on bond pending 

the appeal of his conviction. He bases his argument on the language of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-20-11 (1987} which states: "A person convicted of a felony in the district court and held in 

official confinement while awaiting the outcome of an appeql, 

••• shall be given credit for the period spent in confinement 

against any sentence finally imposed for that offense." Petitioner points out that he was required, while out on bond, to 

abide by the court's orders, that is, not to leave the court's 

jurisdiction without its permission, and report to all court hearings and/or processes. Accordingly, he claims he was under 

"official confinement" within the meaning of N.M. Stat. Ann. 331-

20-11 (1987} quoted above. The district court, adopting the recommendation of the magistrate, dismissed the petition with preju- . . 

dice. We affirm for the reasons set forth below. 

We note that under 28 U. S . C. § 2254 (1982) a federal court 

"shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 

behalf of a person ... only on the ground that he i~ in custody 

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States." Mr. Mondragon bases his petition solely on the New 

Mexico statute quoted above and asserts no constitutional or other 

federal issue. He raised the same question before the New Mexico 

Supreme Court which construed the statute against him. The 

state's construction of its own statute is conclusive on that 

i ssue and does not raise a federal constitutional issue cognizable 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2162 Document: 01019964523 Date Filed: 02/27/1990 Page: 2 
in habeas corpus. Silva v. Cox, 351 F.2d 61 (10th Cir. 1965). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2162 Document: 01019964523 Date Filed: 02/27/1990 Page: 3