Mascarenas v. StateMascarenas v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Sosa
OPINION
SOSA, Chief Justice.Defendants Mascarenas, Stelly and Ellis had appeals pending before the Court of Appeals at the time of their brief escape from the New Mexico State Penitentiary. Upon motion by the State, the court dismissed their appeals. We granted certiorari and now reverse.
Mascarenas was sentenced to the New Mexico State Penitentiary upon conviction for armed robbery and assault upon a police officer. A timely notice of appeal was entered on September 17, 1979.
Stelly was serving time in the penitentiary on a September 9, 1979 conviction for kidnapping, criminal sexual penetration and assault. He timely filed a notice of appeal on September 20, 1979.
Ellis was also in the penitentiary, and had filed a timely notice of appeal on September 19, 1979 from a previous escape conviction.
On or about December 9,1979, while their appeals were pending, Mascarenas, Stelly and Ellis escaped from the New Mexico State Penitentiary. Mascarenas and Stelly were recaptured on the day after they escaped; Ellis was recaptured on December 20,1979. On December 11,1979, after Mascarenas and Stelly had been recaptured, and before Ellis was recaptured, the State filed motions to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that defendants waived their right to appeal by the act of escape. The Court of Appeals granted the motions on December 19, 1979.
The issue we are presented with is whether a prisoner who escapes from custody forfeits the right to any appeal pending at the time of escape regardless of when he is recaptured?
The Constitution of New Mexico provides that an aggrieved party shall have an absolute right to one appeal.
Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the escapee may still be criminally liable for the act of escape. § 30-22-9, N.M.S.A.1978. Because the Legislature has already provided for the punishment of escaped prisoners, there is no need for this Court to use the forfeiture of a constitutional right as a further sanction.
The dismissals of the appeals of defendants in this case are reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
EASLEY, C. J., and PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.