{
  "id": 2737601,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George VIGIL, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Vigil",
  "decision_date": "1968-05-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 156",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.M. 287"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "442 P.2d 599"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 751",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2809268
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0751-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804788
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0644-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5324063
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0600-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 5310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.63,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2871460845786762
    },
    "sha256": "70ef66548fd0f37cb64406adba4ffc02b4b5093a8e7de8c09071fcdfe60d162a",
    "simhash": "1:51b0e4bc1d9f24ba",
    "word_count": 882
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:21:18.946358+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "OMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George VIGIL, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nARMIJO, Judge.\nAppellant was informed against as having committed an assault with a deadly weapon and upon his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of years as prescribed by law. He appeals from the judgment and sentence and claims the following as grounds for reversal:\n\u201cTHE DISTRICT COURT INCORRECTLY ADVISED THE DEFENDANT OF THE APPLICABLE LAW THEREBY DEPRIVING THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT OF ADVICE OF COUNSEL; HENCE, DEFENDANT\u2019S PLEA OF GUILTY WAS INVOLUNTARY.\u201d\nWe are cited no authority for this contention.\nSteve Adams was the victim of knife wounds inflicted during an attack on him by four boys. Because of age, two of the assailants were tried in juvenile court and two others were tried as adults and were convicted in trial by jury. Later, one of those convicted was discharged following appellant\u2019s confession inculpating himself as one of the parties to the crime. Appellant waived preliminary hearing after declining the court\u2019s offer to furnish counsel. . Upon filing of the information, the court assigned counsel to represent appellant.'\nAppellant\u2019s plea of guilty was accepted by the court with the intimation this action was not irrevocable and deferred sentence for several days to permit appellant to reconsider his plea if he so desired.\nPrior to accepting the plea, the court conducted extensive inquiry to determine if it was voluntarily made. The consequences of the plea were explained and the court otherwise made an exhaustive investigation into matters 'related to the incident giving rise to the charge, including the taking of the sworn testimony of the two juveniles who were participants in the crime. The court\u2019s inquiry disclosed that one of the juveniles held the knife during the assault. The court explained to appellant the consequences of being an aider and abettor; that one who aids and abets is equally guilty with the principal. These inquiries and explanations, conducted after the guilty plea had been made and accepted, are the basis for appellant\u2019s claim of error.\nAppellant claims that the court\u2019s advice concerning aider and abettor was incorrect and that this had the effect of depriving him of advice of counsel. We disagree with this contention. Were we to assume the court\u2019s explanation of the law of' aider and abettor was incorrect, the conclusion we reach would be the same. We fail to see how the explanation by the court deprived defendant of the advice of his attorney. We are not told in what respect the court\u2019s advice differs from that of counsel. We can only assume it does not, since appellant and his counsel were present at arraignment as well as at all hearings subsequent thereto and at no time was an objection registered. From the record we find nothing to indicate appellant intended to plead other than guilty.\nIt is fundamental, that before a plea of guilty can be accepted, it must be voluntarily made, otherwise it is void. State v. Tipton, 78 N.M. 600, 435 P.2d 430 (1967) and State v. Robbins, 77 N.M. 644, 427 P.2d 10 (1967).\nAlso, it is the settled rule that a plea of guilty voluntarily made and after opportunity to consult with counsel and with full understanding of the consequences, is binding. State v. Tipton, supra; State v. Ortiz, 77 N.M. 751, 427 P.2d 264 (1967).\nAs we have noted, the plea was made following appellant\u2019s consultation with his attorney. At time of arraignment, a few hours were lacking in order to complete the twenty-four hour period allowed by. statute after service of the information. To the court inquiry, appellant\u2019s counsel replied:\n\u201cMR. RUNYAN: We will waive that time. It may lack a few hours, but we will waive it.\n* * * % * *\n\u201cMR. RUNYAN: We have had enough time to investigate and make sure we felt this was the right way to do it, so we will waive the remaining time.\u201d\nAlso, during arraignment the court asked:\n\u201cTHE COURT: Mr. Runyan, have you consulted with the defendant concerning the charge?\u201d\nto which he replied:\n\u201cYes, I have, your Honor.\u201d\nand then the court inquired of the appellant:\n\u201cTHE COURT: And you discussed these facts very thoroughly with Mr. Runyan?\n\u201cTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\n\u201cTHE COURT: And it concerns the assault on Steve Adams, who, I understand, was a tourist here last July. You understand that that\u2019s the charge?\n\u201cTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\u201d\nIt was following this colloquy that the court accepted the plea of guilty and it was subsequent thereto that matters relating to aider and abettor were discussed by the court.\nImmediately before pronouncing sentence the court asked appellant:\n\u201c * * * Do you still say that you are guilty of assaulting Steve Adams with a deadly weapon?\u201d\nto which the defendant replied:\n\u201cYes.\u201d\nWhen the plea was made, it was definite, unconditional and free from qualification.\nHaving concluded that the plea of guilty was voluntarily and understandingly made, we hold that nothing which was later said by the court rendered this plea involuntary.\nFinding no error, the judgment is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nOMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARMIJO, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Norman E. Runyan, Tucumcari, for appellant.",
      "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., David R. Sierra, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "442 P.2d 599\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George VIGIL, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 156.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 31, 1968.\nNorman E. Runyan, Tucumcari, for appellant.\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., David R. Sierra, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 319,
  "last_page_order": 321
}