Court Opinion

ID: 9535439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:49:34.101504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:15.230914
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing MOISE, Justice. Appellant has employed new counsel and now moves for rehearing because of claimed incompetence of previous counsel who represented him at the trial and on appeal. Without detailing the reasons argued as supporting his position that counsel was incompetent, we note his argument that he did not receive a fair trial or proper defense and, accordingly, under the doctrine announced in State v. Gomez, 75 N.M. 545, 408 P.2d 48 (1965), the conviction cannot stand.  We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for the claim of incompetence of counsel under the facts here present. Neither does the law permit a conclusion of incompetence. See State v. Moser, 78 N.M. 212, 430 P.2d 106, decided July 17, 1967; State v. Cathey, 32 Wis. 2d 79, 145 N.W.2d 100 (1966); Annot., 74 A.L.R.2d 1390. The motion for rehearing is denied. It is so ordered. CHAVEZ, C. J., and JOE W. WOOD, J., Court of Appeals, concur.