{ "id": 5330252, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claude David SWIM and Richard Anthony Bobrick, Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Swim", "decision_date": "1971-04-02", "docket_number": "No. 551", "first_page": "478", "last_page": "480", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 N.M. 478" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "483 P.2d 1318" } ], "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": "82 N.M. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5326262 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.M. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2847329 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/66/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 N. M. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2714852 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/67/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5326683 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 U.S. 487", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6173883 ], "weight": 6, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/368/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5324373 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "983" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.M. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2736241 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/79/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5360402 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0562-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 404, "char_count": 5685, "ocr_confidence": 0.678, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.41186757842258e-08, "percentile": 0.4828534404901598 }, "sha256": "00cfc78f157d097f78da93558948b7382dd8cdf20c77d652740c2ca80608a063", "simhash": "1:33e46f468fa62c7b", "word_count": 925 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:16:32.756560+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY, J., and DEE C. BLYTHE, District Judge, concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claude David SWIM and Richard Anthony Bobrick, Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINI\u00d3N\nSPIESS, Chief Judge.\nDefendants\u2019 petitions for post conviction relief, Rule 93 (\u00a7 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A. 1953, (Rpl. Vol. 4), were denied,' without an evidentiary hearing. The court, after reviewing the allegations of the petitions, and the files and records of the case, determined that \u201c * * * it is' conclusively shown that defendants are not entitled to relief under Rule 93.\u201d \u2018 Appeal is from the trial court\u2019s orders denying relief as to each defendant. We reverse.\nThe sole contention upon appeal is that: \u201cThe Court erred in failing to grant appellants an evidentiary hearing upon their allegations that their pleas of guilty were coerced and involuntary.\u201d\nDefendants were convicted upon their guilty pleas of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. \u00a7 40A-16-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (Rpl. Vol. 6), and sentences were imposed.\nEach of defendants, through separate petitions, allege:\n\u201cWhile petitioner was incarcerated in the said McKinley County jail, petitioner was placed in solitary confinement and was subjected to physical and mental punishment for an extended period of time; such treatment amounted to coercion of the petitioner and was the reason that a plea of guilty was entered by petitioner.\u201d\nAffidavits signed by each of defendants likewise appear in the record, stating:\n\u201cAffiant entered the plea of guilty because of coerc\u00edan [sic] effected upon them by the Sheriff of McKinley County while affiant was incarcerated in the McKinley County jail.\u201d\nVoluntariness of the guilty pleas was clearly challenged by the petitions and affidavits. The trial court, in its decision, found:\n\u201cOn August 13, 1968, the Defendants appeared in District Court and after being advised of the charges against them, of the possible penalty in the event of conviction after a plea or after trial, and of their right to trial by jury, Petitioners entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the. Information;\n\u201cThat the Court thereafter determined from the Defendants that no threats or promises had been made to them and that the plea of guilty was made willingly. The plea of guilty of each of the Defendants was then accepted by the Court.\u201d\nIt is apparent that defendants\u2019 claims asserted in their petitions and affidavits are in conflict with the record made at the time the pleas were accepted. Defendants\u2019 claims involve matters which allegedly occurred outside the courtroom and, if established would warrant vacating the sentences. The conflict cannot be resolved in the absence of an evidentiary hearing at which the facts can be fully developed even though the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the plea of guilty would constitute sufficient support for a finding and determination that the pleas were voluntarily made. State v. Maimona, 80 N.M. 562, 458 P.2d 814 (Ct.App.1969).\nIn State v. Reece, 79 N.M. 142, 441 P.2d 40 (1968), the Supreme Court, considering a comparable fact situation, said:\n\u201cThis appeal is controlled by what we said in State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982, 983 (1967), from which we quote the following:\nWe think it appropriate to call attention to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States in Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473, discussed the proper procedure for district courts under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A., \u00a7 2255, from which o\u00fcr Rule 93 was patterned. That court pointed out that the federal statute requires a district court to \u201cgrant a prompt hearing\u201d when such a motion is filed, and to \u201cdetermine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto\u201d unless \u201cthe motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.\u201d The cotirt there went on to emphasise that where factual allegations relating primarily to purported occurrences outside of the courtroom put in issue matters upon which the record could cast no real light, the court must hold a hearing at which the prisoner is permited [iic] to offer evidence.\u2019 \u25a0 (Emphasis supplied.)\n\u201cIt should be evident that among claims made by petitioner are several concerning occurrences outside the record which, if true, would be grounds for vacating his sentence, and that these assertions could not be resolved without a hearing. Admittedly, these allegations conflict with the record made at the time of the arraignment. However, absent a hearing at which testimony is adduced, no method is available for determining the truth. The court erred , in denying the motion without counsel and an evidentiary hearing. See State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588, 435 P.2d 207 (1967), where the holding in Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473 (1962), followed by us in State v. Franklin, supra, was again applied. Compare State v. Fuentes, 67 N. M. 31, 351 P.2d 209 (1960), and 66 N.M. 52, 342 P.2d 1080 (1959).\u201d\nSee also State v. Patton, 82 N.M. 29, 474 P.2d 711 (Ct.App.1970).\nBased upon these authorities, we are of the opinion that defendants should have been accorded an evidentiary hearing. The orders of the trial court are accordingly reversed, the cause remanded with directions to the court to grant defendants \u25a0evidentiary hearings upon the issue of the voluntariness of their pleas of guilty.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY, J., and DEE C. BLYTHE, District Judge, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SPIESS, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Louis G. Stewart, Jr., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellants.", ". James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., C. Emery Cuddy, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "483 P.2d 1318\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claude David SWIM and Richard Anthony Bobrick, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 551.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 2, 1971.\nLouis G. Stewart, Jr., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellants.\n. James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., C. Emery Cuddy, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0478-01", "first_page_order": 534, "last_page_order": 536 }