The officer before whom such party is brought on such writ shall immediately after the return thereof, proceed to examine into the facts contained in such return, and into the cause of the confinement or restraint of such party, whether the same was before commitment for any criminal charge or not.

History: Laws 1884, ch. 1, § 14; C.L. 1884, § 2025; C.L. 1897, § 2794; Code 1915, § 2602; C.S. 1929, § 63-114; 1941 Comp., § 25-1114; 1953 Comp., § 22-11-14.

Cross references. — For additional provisions governing hearings, see 44-1-24, 44-1-25 NMSA 1978.

Standard for imposing the sanction of granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus. — The standard for granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus without a response from the state requires a determination of whether the state's conduct reached the point of stubborn resistance to the court's orders that would justify such an extreme sanction. Quintana v. Bravo, 2013-NMSC-011, 299 P.3d 414.

The court's sanction for the state's delay in responding to a petition for writ of habeas corpus was not justified. — Where petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus to vacate jury verdicts convicting petitioner of several felonies, including first-degree murder, on the ground that petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel; one of petitioner's trial counsel, who admitted by affidavit that the representation of petitioner was ineffective, was then working for the district attorney's office; because of the conflict of interest, the district attorney did not file a response to the petition and did not appear at motion hearings; the district attorney attempted to secure other counsel for the respondents; the district court was aware of the conflict and the confusion regarding whether an attorney from the attorney general's office or an attorney from a district attorney's office in another jurisdiction would represent the respondents; and the district court granted the petition based on the allegations in the petition and trial counsel's affidavit because the respondents had failed to timely file a response to the petition and to appear at scheduled motion hearings, refused to delay the hearing on the motion to rule on the pleadings, and subsequently denied a motion to reconsider, the conduct of the district attorney and the attorney general did not rise to the level of stubborn resistance to the district court's orders that would justify the extreme sanction of vacating petitioner's jury convictions without both considering a response from respondents and after having a full evidentiary hearing. Quintana v. Bravo, 2013-NMSC-011, 299 P.3d 414.

Pardoned prisoners not legally interested when warden enjoined from releasing them. — Where the superintendent (now warden) of the penitentiary has been enjoined from releasing prisoners pardoned by the governor, such persons are not legally interested in the question as to whether the superintendent has violated the injunction in allowing them to be arrested for another crime, but such question is between the superintendent and the court which issued the injunction. Ex parte Bustillos, 1920-NMSC-095, 26 N.M. 449, 194 P. 886.

Law reviews. — For article, "Habeas Corpus in New Mexico," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 291 (1981).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus §§ 142, 143.

Right to prove absence from demanding state or alibi on habeas corpus in extradition proceedings, 61 A.L.R. 715.

Bar of limitations as proper subject of investigation in extradition proceedings or in habeas corpus proceedings for release of one sought to be extradited, 77 A.L.R. 902.

Right to aid of counsel in application or hearing for habeas corpus, 162 A.L.R. 1922.

39A C.J.S. Habeas Corpus §§ 207 to 209.