State v. Bachicha

Decision Date06 October 1972
Docket NumberNo. 937,937
Citation503 P.2d 1173,84 N.M. 395,1972 NMCA 137
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond L. BACHICHA, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico
OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Pursuant to a plea of guilty, Bachicha was sentenced for the unlawful possession of amphetamines. Section 54--6--38(B)(3), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2, Supp.1971). He appeals.

We affirm.

On September 7, 1971, with a court appointed attorney present, Bachicha entered a plea of not guilty. On November 10, 1971, through private counsel, Bachicha advised the court that he wished to change his plea to guilty.

This appeal has been undertaken by a third attorney, appointed by the court, and Bachicha was granted free process.

In its order filed the same day as the plea of guilty, the trial court stated:

After the court interrogated the defendant and was satisfied that he voluntarily and intelligently entered a Plea of Guilty, having been advised of the Constitutional Rights which he was waiving and the sentence which could be imposed, and it further appearing that the defendant's counsel had explained to the defendant his rights and concurred in the Plea of Guilty, the Court then accepted the Plea of Guilty and found the defendant Guilty.

Bachicha now contends that the judgment and sentence are invalid because the record does not disclose that he voluntarily and understandingly entered his plea of guilty, and was thereby denied due process of law.

The order stated above, which was not attacked in the trial court or on appeal, and the record of the hearing are sufficient to show that Bachicha's plea of guilty was voluntary and understandingly made. State v. Elledge, 81 N.M. 18, 462 P.2d 152 (Ct.App.1969).

It is so ordered.

COWAN, J., concurs.

HERNANDEZ, J., concurs specially.

HERNANDEZ, Judge (specially concurring).

I am obliged to concur because the defendant failed to raise the issue of the voluntariness of his plea of guilty by timely and proper objection in the trial court. Nevertheless, this record compels comment because of its 'documentary' compliance and 'actual' non-compliance with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).

The trial court's order, quoted above, recites that the court interrogated the defendant and that it was satisfied that he voluntarily and intelligently entered a plea of guilty. However, the record reveals the following:

'THE COURT: Do you know what the penalty is on this?

'MR. STRAND: Yes, your Honor, It's--

'THE COURT: All I'm interested in is whether it is a felony.

'MR. STRAND: It is a high court misdemeanor, your Honor.

(Mr. Knott and Mr. Bachicha conferring.)

'THE COURT: Just a minute. What's going on?

'MR. KNOTT: What I was saying, Mr. Bachicha was arrested for both, possession of amphetamines and barbiturates. He has a prescription for the barbiturates.

'MR. STRAND: There is nembutal and there's amphetamines. There's numbutal and seconal.

'MR. KNOTT: Yes, but as I have discussed--

'THE COURT: I want to find out if this man is pleading guilty to having these contrary to law.

'MR. KNOTT: He wants to plead guilty to the amphetamines contrary to law, not to the barbiturates. We do have a prescription for the barbituartes. It is specifically for seconal, Mr. Bachicha has informed me. I think we can show to the satisfaction of the district attorney that they do give nembutal when they're out of seconal, it's the same thing.

'THE COURT: What are these amphetamines he is pleading guilty to?

'MR. STRAND: Amphetamines, that's a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Gunzelman
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • November 30, 1972
    ...containing an essential element of a crime is jurisdictional and may be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Bachicha, 84 N.M. 395, 503 P.2d 1173 (Ct.App.) decided October 13, 1972; State v. Walsh, 81 N.M. 65, 463 P.2d 41 Section 40A--16--3, supra, states: 'Burglary consists of the......
  • State v. Vigil
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • June 20, 1973
    ...plea cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Martinez,84 N.M. 766, 508 P.2d 36 (Ct.App.1973); State v. Bachicha, 84 N.M. 395, 503 P.2d 1173 (Ct.App.1972). We affirm those decisions and hold, here, that the issue as to the voluntariness of defendant's guilty plea, not having ......
  • Bachicha v. State, 9567
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1972

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT