Court Opinion

ID: 9564146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:55:01.536491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:14.717666
License: Public Domain

ANDREWS, Judge (specially concurring). I agree with the result reached in the opinion for the reason that the court lacked jurisdiction to extend defendant’s probationary period. However, the question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to review probation revocation hearings is not as simple. The Supreme Court, in State v. Mendoza, 91 N.M. 688, 579 P.2d 1255 (1978), held that a “revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding and the same procedural safeguards that attach to a criminal proceeding do not always apply to a revocation hearing.” (Emphasis added.) If the hearing is not a continuation of the earlier criminal action as might be defined in Section 34-5-8(C), N.M.S.A.1978, it must be an action described in one or more of the other provisions granting jurisdiction to this Court. Art. VI, § 29, N.M.Const.; see State v. Court of Appeals, 78 N.M. 71, 428 P.2d 473 (1967); State v. Watson, 82 N.M. 769, 487 P.2d 197 (Ct.App.1971). I do not believe this proceeding can be considered within the jurisdiction of the court under Section 34-5-8(D), “post-conviction remedy.” Section 31-11-6, N.M.S. A.1978 relating to “post-conviction remedy” sets out the conditions under which a “prisoner in custody under sentence of a court” can seek relief from such sentence: A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by the laws of New Mexico claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, or of the Constitution or Laws of New Mexico, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. Clearly, a probation revocation hearing is not included within this definition. Rather, Section 34-5-8(G), providing jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals “in any other action” appears to be the provision upon which appellate jurisdiction rests in a probation revocation hearing. Where an order deferring a sentence is a final judgment for purposes of appeal, Section 31-20-10, N.M.S.A.1978, an order revoking a deferred sentence must also be appealable. See Pernell v. State, 92 N.M. 490, 590 P.2d 638 (1979); Art. VI, Sec. 2, N.M.Const. And, where defendant’s original appeal was rightly in this court, Section 35-5-8(C), supra, this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a matter closely related to that appeal is a final determination of jurisdiction. State v. Lucero, 81 N.M. 578, 469 P.2d 727 (Ct.App.1970); see State v. Watson, supra.