{
  "id": 1575603,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy A. AYALA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ayala",
  "decision_date": "1981-01-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 4601",
  "first_page": "464",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.M. 464"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "623 P.2d 584"
    }
  ],
  "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": "65 A.L.R.2d 854",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 Neb. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Neb.",
      "case_ids": [
        5154602
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/neb/176/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 F.2d 734",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        918793,
        918839
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/59/0734-01",
        "/f2d/59/0734-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 F.2d 394",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        941711
      ],
      "year": 1935,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/80/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "532 P.2d 598",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10471384
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/532/0598-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N.M. 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2855463
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/72/0080-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "500 F.2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2258064
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/500/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Idaho 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Idaho",
      "case_ids": [
        2355370
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/idaho/92/0665-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2866675
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0468-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5355483
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N.M. 171",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1575569
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/95/0171-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.M. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571155
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.M. 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1568710
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/93/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.M. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1573181
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/94/0352-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 397,
    "char_count": 6686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.844,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.200186647161009e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5934373007847176
    },
    "sha256": "064d39c000de4c149c6c9f93b77f0b1b50157e2676759e08ae75a2cf0b9fd5b0",
    "simhash": "1:972e78a6cd4cd2ea",
    "word_count": 1086
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:15.389388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy A. AYALA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Section 30-3-5(C), N.M.S.A.1978. The validity of the conviction is not challenged. Sentence was deferred for 30 months and defendant was placed on probation under specific conditions. One of the conditions was that defendant serve four months in the county jail. The record shows that defendant has served at least part of this jail time. However, defendant raises no issue as to the consequences of this jail time. See State v. Castillo, 94 N.M. 352, 610 P.2d 756 (Ct.App.1980); State v. Aragon, 93 N.M. 132, 597 P.2d 317 (Ct.App.1979). Defendant complains only of the assessment of \u201ccosts of prosecution\u201d against him. These costs were:\n(a) Jury costs in the amount of $1,211.90.\n(b) The cost of the bailiffs for the Jury Trial in the amount of $120.00.\nWe agree with defendant that these costs were improperly imposed. We do not reach the constitutional issues raised; we limit our discussion to: (1) costs as a condition of probation, and (2) costs apart from probation.\nCosts as a Condition of Probation\nThe parties argue the propriety of the assessment of costs on the basis that payment of the assessed costs was a condition of probation. Under this point we decide the question on that basis.\nThe trial court may impose conditions of probation authorized by law; conditions of probation unauthorized by law are void. State v. Holland, 91 N.M. 386, 574 P.2d 605 (Ct.App.1978).\nSection 31-20-6, N.M.S.A.1978 authorizes conditions of probation. The two pertinent provisions are:\nA. to pay the actual costs of his probation service not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) annually in one or several installments;\nF. to satisfy any other conditions reasonably related to his rehabilitation.\nBeing limited to cost of probation service, \u00a7 31-20-6(A), supra, did not authorize jury and bailiff costs in prosecuting defendant. Similarly, authorization for conditions reasonably related to rehabilitation in \u00a7 31-20-6(F), supra, did not authorize such costs. Why? Because jury and bailiff costs were not \u201crelevant to the offense for which probation was granted.\u201d State v. Holland, supra; State v. Gardner, 95 N.M. 171, 619 P.2d 847 (Ct.App.1980).\nSection 31-12-6, N.M.S.A.1978 states: \u201cIn every case wherein there is a conviction, the costs may be adjudged against the defendant.\u201d See also R.Crim.Proc. 46(b). It is not disputed that defendant was convicted; such was a prerequisite to deferring his sentence. Section 31-20-3, N.M.S.A.1978; State v. Apodaca, 80 N.M. 155, 452 P.2d 489 (Ct.App.1969).\nThe general authority to assess costs against a convicted defendant will be discussed in the next issue. At this point our concern is whether this general authority permits the assessment of costs as a condition of probation. We hold that it does not. The Legislature having made a specific provision for costs as a condition of probation in \u00a7 31-20-6(A), supra, that specific provision controls over the general provision of \u00a7 31-12-6, supra. New Mexico Bureau of Rev. v. Western Elec. Co., 89 N.M. 468, 553 P.2d 1275 (1976). The specific provision did not authorize assessment of jury and bailiff fees as costs.\nCosts Apart From Probation\nA permissible reading of the trial court\u2019s \u201cjudgment and sentence\u201d is that costs were assessed, not as a probation condition, but independently of those conditions. Under such a reading, were the costs properly assessed?\nState v. Hanson, 92 Idaho 665, 448 P.2d 758 (1968) points out that \u201c[ajssessment of costs in criminal cases is a statutory creation, unknown at common law ... so we must seek such authority from our statutes.\u201d\nUnited States v. Pommerening, 500 F.2d 92 (10th Cir. 1974) states: \u201cStatutes relating to taxable costs are to a degree penal in character. As a result, they must be strictly construed and items to be taxed must be within the express language of the statutes.\u201d\nSection 31-12-6, supra, authorizes assessment of costs against a convicted defendant. \u2022 The authorization, based on a conviction, permits assessment of costs against a defendant whose sentence is deferred, as in this case.\nBut what costs? City of Portales v. Bell, 72 N.M. 80, 380 P.2d 826 (1963) points out that what is now \u00a7 31-12-6, supra, \u201cdoes not specify what are the particular items of costs.\u201d City of Portales than refers to a general rule \u201cthat costs of prosecution do not include the general expense of maintaining a system of courts and the administration of justice.\u201d\nThe Idaho statute involved in State v. Hanson, supra, similar to \u00a7 31-12-6, supra, did not specify the particular items of costs. Hanson states: \u201cSeveral courts have determined that jury costs are a general expense of maintaining the system of courts and the administration of justice, and that such costs are more properly an ordinary burden of government.\u201d Hanson adopted this view and held jury costs could not be assessed against a defendant in a criminal case.\nJohnson v. State, 532 P.2d 598 (Wyo.1975) held that neither jury nor bailiff expenses could be taxed as costs of prosecution against the convicted defendant. Gleckman v. United States, 80 F.2d 394 (8th Cir. 1935) disallowed jury and bailiff fees as cost items. \u201cThese items ... [are] the expense incurred by the government in providing a tribunal, that is, a judge and jury for the trial of the case .... \u201d Such expense was \u201cthe general expense of maintaining the system of courts and the administration of justice, all of which is an ordinary burden of government.\u201d See United States v. Murphy, 59 F.2d 734 (D.C.S.D.Ala.1932); State v. Jungclaus, 176 Neb. 641, 126 N.W.2d 858 (1964). Generally, see Annot., \u201cItems of costs of prosecution for which defendant may be held\u201d, 65 A.L.R.2d 854 (1959).\nFollowing City of Portales v. Bell, supra, and the above-cited cases holding jury and bailiff costs are part of the general expense of maintaining a system of courts and the administration of justice, we hold the jury and bailiff costs were improperly assessed against defendant if they were assessed independently of any condition of probation.\nThe costs assessed against defendant are set aside. The remainder of the judgment and sentence is affirmed. An amended judgment and sentence are to be entered consistent with this opinion.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Lewis, Foy, Foy & Jollensten, P. A., Silver City, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Carol Jean Vigil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "623 P.2d 584\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy A. AYALA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 4601.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 20, 1981.\nMichael Lewis, Foy, Foy & Jollensten, P. A., Silver City, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Carol Jean Vigil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0464-01",
  "first_page_order": 496,
  "last_page_order": 498
}