Title: Carter v. Montoya
Citation: 410 P.2d 951, 75 N.M. 730
Docket Number: 8045
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: February 7, 1966

410 P.2d 951 (1966) 75 N.M. 730 Phil CARTER, Superintendent of the Los Lunas Hospital and Training School, and Board of Directors of the Los Lunas Hospital and Training School, Mrs. A.F. Crosby, MRS. E.L. Kemp, Joseph C. Ryan, William Hoagland and Bennie Sanchez, Relators, v. Judge Samuel Z. MONTOYA, Juvenile Court Judge, First Judicial District, Santa Fe County, Respondent. No. 8045. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 7, 1966. Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O'Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for relators. Alfonso G. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., Norman M. Neel, Joseph F. Baca, Asst. Dist. Attys., *952 Santa Fe, Dean S. Zinn, Santa Fe, for respondent. COMPTON, Justice. This is an original proceeding in which we issued an alternative writ prohibiting the respondent from proceeding in a contempt action instituted by the district attorney against the relators for their alleged wilful refusal to obey respondent's order to admit a juvenile to the Los Lunas Hospital and Training School. The order committing the juvenile was dated November 16, 1965. The relators' refusal to admit the juvenile at the time was the lack of available accommodations. The Board, under date of November 16, 1965, acting through its superintendent, explained its action by letter, as follows: Did the court have the power to force the relators to receive the juvenile under the foregoing conditions? Manifestly, we must look to the statutes for an answer. The pertinent provisions of the statutes upon which relators rely read: Section 34-3-5, subd. E, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (Supp. 1965): *953 Section 34-3-6, subd. C, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (Supp. 1965): Section 34-3-6.2, subd. C, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (Supp. 1965): On the other hand respondent points to the following statute as providing a basis for the position taken by him. The statute, in part, reads: Section 13-8-53, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (Supp. 1965): It is respondent's position that the latter section grants to juvenile courts the power to commit juveniles to the institution regardless of available accommodations. We disagree; while all the statutes with which we are here concerned were enacted in 1965, it makes no difference in this situation which became law first, because, being in pari materia, it is apparent to us that they were actuated by the same policy and must be read together. Manilla Community School District etc., v. Halverson, 251 Iowa 496, 101 N.W.2d 705. When we do so, we are forced to the conclusion that availability of accommodations is made the controlling factor in determining admissions, and this question rests solely with the relators and not with the court. That the court may punish for contempt is not open to question, § 13-8-67, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (Supp. 1965), but, in view of what is later said, he is without authority to proceed further against the relators. The respondent further argues that since relators have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law, prohibition does not lie. This general rule is universal and needs no citation of authorities, but there are exceptions as where the court is acting in excess of its jurisdiction. It is clear that the court went beyond its legitimate powers and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction. The order being a complete nullity, prohibition is proper. State ex rel. State Corp. Commission v. Zinn, 72 N.M. 29, 380 P.2d 182; State ex rel. De Moss v. District Court of the Sixth Judicial Dist., 55 N.M. 135, 227 P.2d 937; State Game Commission v. Tackett, 71 N.M. 400, 379 P.2d 54. Compare The Macabees v. Chavez, 43 N.M. 329, 93 P.2d 990. Other questions urged by respondent have been noticed and are also found without merit. The writ should be made absolute, and it is so ordered. CARMODY, C.J., and CHAVEZ, NOBLE, and MOISE, JJ., concur.