State v. Belcher
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HENDLEY, Judge.
Convicted of forgery, Defendant appeals. His sole point on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a motion for continuance.
■ We affirm.
The motion was filed four days prior to trial and recited that it was necessary to obtain subpoenas for two out-of-state witnesses, who did not testify, and one instate witness, who did testify at trial.
At the hearing on the motion the following facts emerged. Counsel was appointed on August 31, 1970, and talked to defendant about witnesses. No witnesses were named. On December 7, 1970, after notice of a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. RanneNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- State v. DeatsNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
- State v. CochranNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. GutierrezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
- State v. GarciaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. BleaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
- State v. BelcherNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
- State v. AtwoodNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
- State v. AtwoodNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971