Legal Opinion

Morales v. Bridgforth

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 2004No. 28,078PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MAES, Chief Justice.

{1} Petitioner and other similarly situated habeas petitioners petitioned this Court for a writ of superintending control to allow the Post Conviction Conflict Division of the Public Defender Department (“the Department”) to represent individuals in habeas proceedings who allege that their public defender at trial was ineffective, provided each individual consents to such representation. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3. We granted the writ, concluding there is no per se conflict of interest where the Post Conviction Conflict Division of the Department represents an…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Asch v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2003
  2. McCall v. District Court for the Twenty-First Judicial DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 1989
  3. Richards v. PattonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State v. JonesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. VealeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2007
  2. Nelson v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Christopher Brown v. State of TennesseeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2020
  4. Roberts v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2013
  5. State v. MartinezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API