LegalFix

Section 30-36-5 - Penalty.

NM Stat § 30-36-5 (2019) (N/A)
Copy with citation
Copy as parenthetical citation

Any person violating Section 30-36-4 NMSA 1978 shall be punished as follows:

A. when the amount of the check, draft or order, or the total amount of the checks, drafts or orders, are for more than one dollar ($1.00) but less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00), imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than thirty days or a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100), or both such imprisonment and fine;

B. when the amount of the check, draft or order, or the total amount of the checks, drafts or orders, are for twenty-five dollars ($25.00) or more, imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than one year nor more than three years or the payment of a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both such imprisonment and fine.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40-49-5, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 114, § 1.

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1965, ch. 114, § 1, repealed 40-49-5, 1953 Comp., relating to penalties for the writing of bad checks, and enacted a new section.

Totaling provisions unconstitutional. — The provisions of this section, concerning the "totaling" of amounts of worthless checks, are so vague that they offend due process and are void. State v. Ferris, 1969-NMCA-093, 80 N.M. 663, 459 P.2d 462.

Totaling provisions severable. — While the "totaling" provisions of this section are void, they may be severed from this section, leaving the remaining portion thereof consistent with 30-36-4 NMSA 1978, which makes an offense out of each worthless check issued. State v. Ferris, 1969-NMCA-093, 80 N.M. 663, 459 P.2d 462.

Frivolous to infer rest of statute unconstitutionally vague. — An inference that because the totaling provision of this section was held unconstitutionally vague, other parts of the Worthless Check Act (30-36-1 to 30-36-9 NMSA 1978) are also unconstitutionally vague was frivolous. State v. Libero, 1978-NMCA-055, 91 N.M. 780, 581 P.2d 873, cert. denied, 92 N.M. 180, 585 P.2d 324.

Quashing of information unwarranted. — The trial court correctly held that defendant could not be punished under Subsection B of this section by "totaling" two checks, but erred in quashing the information, since defendant could still be punished for each worthless check that he had issued. State v. Conners, 1969-NMCA-096, 80 N.M. 662, 459 P.2d 461.

Since defendant was convicted of issuing four worthless checks, he could have been sentenced for each offense under the portion of this section remaining after severance of the provisions on totaling; therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the information. State v. Ferris, 1969-NMCA-093, 80 N.M. 663, 459 P.2d 462.

Reinstatement of charges not double jeopardy. — Dismissal of the information before the entering of a plea because of the unconstitutional vagueness of the "totaling" provision of this section did not place defendant in jeopardy, and, therefore, reinstatement of the information did not subject him to double jeopardy. State v. Ferris, 1969-NMCA-093, 80 N.M. 663, 459 P.2d 462.

Felony degree for violation of Subsection B. — The offense of issuing a worthless check over $25.00 is a "felony" but could not constitute a "fourth degree felony" because the minimum sentence imposed for issuing worthless checks is less than the stated sentence for fourth degree felonies. State v. Muzio, 1987-NMCA-006, 105 N.M. 352, 732 P.2d 879.

Sentence not severable. — A sentence of six to eight years for utterance of fraudulent checks by habitual criminal could not be considered a sentence of five years for uttering fraudulent checks since judgment was not severable. Jordan v. Swope, 1932-NMSC-015, 36 N.M. 84, 8 P.2d 788.

Totaling provisions vague. — The cumulative provisions in this section relating to penalties are vague, indefinite and uncertain. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-80.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 35 C.J.S. False Pretenses § 56.

LegalFix

Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.

LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.

The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.

You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.

The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.

Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

We have updated our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures.