Court Opinion

ID: 9791669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:15:52.45366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:37.845643
License: Public Domain

MOISE, Chief Justice (concurring specially) . Although I can agree that the case now being considered can be distinguished from Sender v. Montoya, 73 N.M. 287, 387 P.2d 860 (1963), and a different result reached, I cannot agree that the basis and grounds for the decision there should be weakened or undermined by express or implied acceptance of what was said in the dissent of the late Justice Noble. Whereas in Sender, supra, it was determined that the remedy by appeal was not adequate for the various reasons therein set forth, in the instant case I am not impressed that the same considerations for granting the writ are present. The right to assert error on the part of the court in refusing to grant petitioner relief on his motion under Rule 41 (e) (§21-1-1(41) (e), N.M.S.A.1953), may be asserted on appeal if upon trial the decision goes against him and an appeal is perfected. Accordingly, I accept the conclusion that the writ be discharged as improvidently issued. In so doing, however, I reaffirm the position concerning the mandatory nature of the rule and its application, as stated in Sender, supra, and also in State ex rel. City of Las Cruces v. McManus, 75 N.M. 267, 404 P.2d 106 (1965). I specifically disagree with anything stated by Justice Watson in his opinion which would in any way alter the holding or result reached in Sender, supra, while at the same time I concur in the result reached by him in this case. COMPTON, TACKETT and SISK, JJ., concur.