{
  "id": 2824082,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie Joe SEDILLO, a/k/a Baylors, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sedillo",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 1331",
  "first_page": "382",
  "last_page": "383",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.M. 382"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "524 P.2d 998"
    }
  ],
  "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": "75 N.M. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5372459
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/75/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2769210
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0060-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 630",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5325831
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0630-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773411
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2766048
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0717-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2073,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.826,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.996483355440432e-07,
      "percentile": 0.954192116992149
    },
    "sha256": "75bec2e54693db76f8fbe0bf4d9f8e34e30e5606c500c3d71423fd794003f42b",
    "simhash": "1:07ba3d287187be51",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:27.328252+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie Joe SEDILLO, a/k/a Baylors, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of the unlawful distribution of heroin. Section 54-11-20, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2, 1973 Supp.). He appeals. We affirm.\nDefendant contends (1) improper extension of time granted under Rule 37, and (2) refusal of defendant\u2019s instruction on entrapment, and closing argument on this issue.\n(1) Court of Appeals cannot review orders of the Supreme Court.\nDefendant contends that the Supreme Court improperly granted an extension of time under Rule 37(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure [\u00a7 41-23-37(c), N. M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1973 Supp.)]. Neither the legislature nor the Supreme Court has granted the Court of Appeals any power to review Supreme Court orders granting an extension of time. Its orders are final. See, Alexander v. Delgado, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973); Gandara v. Wilson, 85 N.M. 161, 509 P.2d 1356 (Ct.App.1973); Salazar v. State, 82 N.M. 630, 485 P.2d 741 (Ct.App.1971).\n(2) Entrapment was not an issue.\nDefendant contends the trial court erred in refusing defendant\u2019s instruction on entrapment and refused defendant the right to argue entrapment to the jury.\nThere is evidence that defendant was a \u201cknown drug pusher.\u201d On two occasions an undercover agent asked defendant if he had any heroin to sell. On each occasion there was a sale. There is no evidence of undue persuasion or that defendant was enticed to make the sales. State v. Rodriguez, 84 N.M. 60, 499 P.2d 378 (Ct.App.1972). All the evidence shows is that defendant was given the opportunity to commit the crimes. That is not entrapment. State v. Akin, 75 N.M. 308, 404 P.2d 134 (1965).\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alfred M. Carvajal, Carl M. Sparks, Carvajal, Cherpelis & Parker, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jane E. Pendleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "524 P.2d 998\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie Joe SEDILLO, a/k/a Baylors, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1331.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 12, 1974.\nAlfred M. Carvajal, Carl M. Sparks, Carvajal, Cherpelis & Parker, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jane E. Pendleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0382-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 413
}