{
  "id": 2829463,
  "name": "Billy Doyle FAULKNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The STATE of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Faulkner v. State",
  "decision_date": "1974-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 1519",
  "first_page": "715",
  "last_page": "716",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.M. 715"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "526 P.2d 1308"
    }
  ],
  "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": "86 N. M. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2824800
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 742",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5332841
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0742-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2512,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.826,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08487734226976168
    },
    "sha256": "daaede8bf0faa82d05319123192e682de8056a2579572296b01109c7ea95bbed",
    "simhash": "1:3aab9357d2ee1e34",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:27.328252+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Billy Doyle FAULKNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The STATE of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThis appeal concerns a second motion for post-conviction relief under \u00a7 21 \u2014 1\u2014 1(93), N.M.S.A. (Repl.Vol. 4).\nThe contention is that petitioner did not voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal from his conviction for armed robbery. The record shows that petitioner took a direct appeal and that after the appeal was docketed in this Court, the appeal was dismissed at his request.\nPetitioner\u2019s contention at the evidentiary hearing on the second motion was that his dismissal of his direct appeal was involuntary. Petitioner\u2019s motion asserts that through his attorney he negotiated a bargain with the District Attorney. The bargain was that petitioner would dismiss his direct appeal in exchange for the District Attorney not prosecuting petitioner as a habitual offender. The motion alleges that the bargain was kept. Evidence at the evidentiary hearing would support a finding by the trial court that dismissal of the direct appeal was not involuntary on petitioner\u2019s part. No such finding was made.\nThe denial of petitioner\u2019s first motion for post-conviction relief was affirmed. Faulkner v. State, 83 N.M. 742, 497 P.2d 744 (Ct.App.1972). The contention made in the second motion could have been raised in the first motion. Thus this appeal is subject to State v. Gillihan, 86 N. M. 439, 524 P.2d 1335, decided July 26, 1974, Gillihan states \u201c * * * we will not consider grounds asserted in a second or successive Rule 93 proceeding which could have been, but were not, asserted in a prior Rule 93 proceeding. Such grounds omitted in the prior proceedings are deemed waived.\u201d\nWe have mentioned two dispositional grounds. However, we do not decide this case on either ground. The trial court\u2019s order states that \u201chaving determined the issues involved in the Petition for post-conviction relief\u201d it is ordered that petitioner be returned to the penitentiary. We do not know what the trial court determined; there is no order denying the motion. Absent such an order there is no basis for the appeal. Section 21-1-1(93) (e), supra.\nThe appeal is dismissed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert H. Scott, Wollen, Segal & Scott, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Muxlow, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "526 P.2d 1308\nBilly Doyle FAULKNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The STATE of New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 1519.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 18, 1974.\nRobert H. Scott, Wollen, Segal & Scott, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Muxlow, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0715-01",
  "first_page_order": 745,
  "last_page_order": 746
}