*1 P.2d 585 appellees sub- as agreement with the inal agreement by the oral sequently modified BREITHAUPT v. STATE. give to have been found them the discount No. 5611. promised by named. her on the conditions part perform- From the found and facts Court of Mexico. shown, statute conclude ance Feb. 1953. bar enforcement of frauds does judgment agreement and that modified
should be affirmed. con opinion well be
The by expressed but for the confusion
cluded incorporat parties to be facts as to “statement appellant’s brief as
ed in an required
of facts.” The statement of facts appel 14(3), rules subd. rule incorporated in an procedure, to be
late brief, is tried to if the issue
appellant’s found
court, ultimate facts relate Doy court, v. Cullender
the decision possi which 491, 105 P.2d
al, 44 N.M. form in narrative be better stated can
bly findings merely copying the
rather than jury, causes tried to brief. In
into sup evidentiary as tend facts
only such incorporated verdict, should be
port “statement of facts.”
therein’ as. verdict, course, conclu
findings or at set direct appeal aside unless
sive
tack. affirmed, Is judgment and It will be Ordered.
So
SADLER, J., McGHEE, C. COORS LUJAN, JJ., concur. allowed,
in the time that an might without says) be taken (as usual with- expense a defendant where period funds; that during the *2 officials, guards he was caused the by believe, and inmates of the to penitentiary al- believe, prisoners he not did attorneys, and lowed to see or contact appeal papers, of applications for writs Reid, Fe, plaintiff T. Santa Justin corpus, papers, habeas could not or other in error. pris- by any be filed in any directly courts oner. but will Other matters stated Kitts, Gen., Atty. W. F. Asst. defend- repeated hearing not be here formal as a in ant error. appeared
was held by the at which Court Warden, petitioner, the the Morris prison McGHEE, Justice. Abram, Timmons, well and inmate who 5, 1951, petitioner April the was sen- On lawyer.” “penitentiary deserves title of of not than six tenced to serve term less a As a the hearing result of we summarize years years peni- nor than ten more findings our material facts of as follows: tentiary conviction in the his following days prisoner Within a after the few County charge a District Eddy Court of prison, entered the then Assistant War- involuntary manslaughter. He filed an den, Abram, Morris him of fully informed delayed appeal application in and, penitentiary, the rules among he was convicted on district court where things, other stated that he to was free 17, 1952, following day and on the October him, lawyer write to the who defended application having denied as was been judge presided trial and the who at the late. made too in sheriff he was tried county which (5) Rules 5 and secs. 19-201 Under concerning any matter connected with his Compilation, appeals 19-201(6), 1941 days case. incar- thirty Within after his writ of error taken or a sued out must be petitioner advised by ceration was in- the entry three months from (above mate Timmons referred to as the judgment. final penitentiary he lawyer) that still had time appeal and that good in to he had petitioner ap- excuses his failure to which appeal provided discharge by grounds .on the time stating he peal within corpus. thirty Within right with- such to writ not advised was him the trial torney to who defended had period asked Abrams petitioner letter, court, the telephone following through to allow look him attorney to get to the name directory “April write, to file he desired as whom Warden, Attorney, “James him owed to for money a civil action “Carlsbad, Mexico he could persons, and was advised some “Dear Jim: prison, while a suit not maintain hit hard. Too bad. got pretty “We He did not denied. permission such was if there was beginning I am to wonder a law- to contact permission ask thereafter with the not colusión connected papers. Inmate or mail out yer a thot. outcome. petition writ for a prepared a Just Timmons for the of habeas please get “Now not Jim, carried out of attempted have it impression, going wrong I am reported such action to a visitor who jailhouse become lawer. entire petition prison authorities fast, smooth, procedure well was so confiscated. oiled, completely confusing *3 me, add, slightly disappoint- may and I prison for had the rule of been n ing. inmates could considerable time that writs legal mail papers petitions or had “I have an interview with clerk a court to directly the statement here he made doctor and except attorney to judge, any or write may possibility there is a to that I me trial court. in the the one who defended him concussion and still suffered brain have early part rule was This abolished my may be. That would account prison visit to the June, following headaches, severe lack of equiblibrum, Attorney, and United States then alertness, hazy memorie lack of mental public over immediately given notice was names, addresses, events concerning prison speaker the inmates of loud to past. The happened in the doctor that they that revocation of rule and X-rays Dr. to Womack for has sent papers. to mail out such liberty at physical complete my details on to rule known all change in the was The applied I have to A.V. condition. , , inmates. hospital. to a admittance V. A. if 16, 1951, man told me that petitioner A. I were April V. wrote The On treatment, Carlsbad, that the A. F. V. Warden of admitted tó James glasses. Mexico, competent experienced my also fix at- would
49 “They a rule here that one “Jim, no have when enough I get glasses money fixed have his until after reopen can intend to I case and days patient stand beat it unless the so there any steps 60 are Well, Hint! should expense. present broke. be at I am taken without in- expense “Jim, volving please have informed I been do so. desires, judge, me sentenced “My best you Warden, Mrs. days the 90 he me credit for could give “Sincerely, county, however prisoner of the
I was a “(sgd.) Breithaupt.” Paul H. days after 30 this must done This letter clearly any refutes claim what passed. Please do sentence was oppression part on the au- you can. up thorities to that time. Warden did not “Incidentally, me Coffee owes $2.00. answer the letter. there, ‘Alabama’, prisoner Also another December, 1951, petitioner Since pair glasses has a of mine—the petitions has filed for writs of habeas cor- the lenses are are but frames broken pus in the District Court of Santa Fe Coun- pair in this use them O.K. and ty, this Court and the United States Dis- have with of frames I me. Mexico, trict Court of New but has been If, “Well, Jim, happy here. I am unsuccessful in securing his release. you imagination any stretch It is true that from the time of his in- happy a man with a con- imagine can carceration the time of the revocation years on to him. hung viction mentioned, the rule above ample. good is The food appeal, could not have mailed out a direct institution is treatment is decent. but he attorney was at liberty to have efficiency. degree of run a good Warden take no have but with strict rules There are some doubt such would have been men, they necessary. 700 or receipt taken April of the letter of get some exercise and sunshine We attorney had he not told such no ex- library every day. good There is a pense quote to be from incurred. We advantage taking here which I am of. *4 the letter: Latin, Geom, have started a of I review solid, plain Trig., physics, “Jim, get enough & and also when I study eng. money reopen electrical intend case and and I am I going steps cover if plumbing, & half the beat it so there are any present ground I have started I will taken in- should be at without hav^ expense please considerable when gained I am free. so.” volving 50 pay- sue a of error right or writ provision no
New Mexico has limited, penitentiary indigent the the time appeal for an within expenses the of ing authorities, to the mandate defendant, many states. we would bow other as do with in of connection the United States Court is in error claimed only Dowd, the ex rel. showing Warden v. United States testimony of the admission Cook, 262, 1951, 206, not test, this could 95 340 U.S. 71 S.Ct. and a blood result of 215, 784, transcript grant least the of at L.Ed. 19 writ a A.L.R.2d without reviewed be error, of admission on its review claimed error testimony relating to prevent usurpation be obtained not merits thus It could evidence. such reporter his in criminal appellate functions cases except the court by paying in the federal courts fees. proceedings. allowing up of practice grown A has defendants transcripts indigent free illiterate We are not an dealing degree, first murder convicted of prisoner, graduate a in -structural but with part on the act humanitarian this is a but Arizona, University engineering reporter judge who orders the trial course, four-year after instead a fund, end such to the paid out of court an immediate deter- seeking here of review have a may defendant mined at the date of letter to make the his his conviction. situation, materially best of increase obliga- financial education and avoid rel. held in State ex have We tions. A careful consideration of evi- 1939, 170, 43 Taylor, N.M. v. Sandoval dence convinces us the authorities Arnold, 1947, 681, v. and State P.2d prevent taking did from time 311, P.2d 845, 51 N.M. any him in efforts to frustrate mandatory, is appeals statute for allowed by provided by take one the time jurisdictional to this timely filing is rules. Geake, Eigner v. heldWe court. that, ex- absent P.2d 52 N.M. is so be denied. petition circumstances, ap- time for ceptional ordered. would of certiorari be
plication for writ appeal or writ error. the same as LUJAN, COMPTON, COORS JJ.. concur. these decisions Notwithstanding of a rule or statute providing our lack SADLER, (concurring in error, delayed appeal or Chief writ Justice been, part). dissenting deprived part petitioner had of his *5 opinion Mr. written Justice correctly
McGhee for the court determines question my submitted and invokes disapproval only
concurrence. relates My predicts
to so much of it as what we would supposed pre-
do state facts opportunity
sented. The for error is multi-
plied proportion to the exact number supposed
times volunteer our views Possibly,
facts. when confronted
grounds delayed facts for a views accord with those expressed today. majority Nevertheless,
should like to feel free to hold otherwise they not. I think decision of the
question should abide the day when we
must is unnecessary decide it. to do
so now.
In ESTATE. TRIMBLE’S v. ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPI
TRIMBLE TAL et al.
No. 5522. Court New Mexico.
Feb. 1953.