Vigil v. People
| Decision Date | 03 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 18425,18425 |
| Citation | 137 Colo. 161,322 P.2d 320 |
| Parties | Johnny or John VIGIL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Johnny Vigil, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, herein referred to as Vigil, or defendant, was informed against in the Weld County District Court in an information embracing five counts. The first count charged grand larceny; the second and third counts set forth convictions of defendant of the crime of burglary in the year 1943 on each of which conviction he was sentenced to the reformatory; the fourth and fifth counts set forth convictions of defendant of grand larceny in the years 1949 and 1951 and in each instance the defendant was sentenced to the state penitentiary.
Vigil entered a plea of not guilty to the first count of the information and pleas of guilty to the second, third, forth and fifth counts.
Trial was had on April 7, 1954 and a verdict of guilty returned. Vigil was thereupon sentenced to the state penitentiary for life as an habitual criminal.
On February 4, 1957 a motion to set aside the sentence imposed was filed, and under the authority of Smalley v. People, 134 Colo. 360, 304 P.2d 902 the trial court set aside the previous sentence and resentenced Vigil nunc pro tunc to a term of not less than twenty-five years, nor more than thirty years, in the state penitentiary.
On September 26, 1957 Vigil sought and was granted a writ of error. We are not favored with a reporter's transcript of the evidence adduced on the trial, and note that the record was filed in this court on October 11, 1957, but the abstract, assignments of error and opening briefs were not filed until January 3, 1958. This, of course, is contrary to our rules governing procedure in this court in criminal cases. In the trial court Vigil was represented by counsel. In this court he appears pro se. We elect to overlook the late filing of the abstract of record, assignments of error and brief on behalf of Vigil.
In essence it is the contention of Vigil that the state had the duty of proving the prior convictions. Where, as here, a defendant enters a plea of guilty, such proof is not required. C.R.S.1953, 39-13-3. O'Day v. People, 114 Colo. 373, 166 P.2d 789. What would or would not constitute competent evidence to establish prima facie proof of former convictions under a plea of not guilty is not the matter to be here determined, the defendant having entered pleas of guilty to the charges of former convictions involved here.
Vigil contends that the Habitual Criminal Act, 39-13-1 is unconstitutional in that it is a special law not affecting equally others similarly situated; that it places the defendant in double jeopardy and that it requires the defendant in such case to be a witness against himself. We cannot agree. The same objections urged by Vigil have been raised in other jurisdictions and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gallegos
...(1977); People v. Bergstrom, 190 Colo. 105, 544 P.2d 396 (1977); People v. Thomas, 189 Colo. 490, 542 P.2d 387 (1975); Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320 (1958). We decline to readdress the issues resolved in these The defendant's first contention is that the habitual criminal sta......
-
People v. Gutierrez
...1973 (now in 1978 Repl.Vol. 8)); 9 People v. Marquez, supra; People v. Bergstrom, supra; People v. Thomas, supra; Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320 (1958). B. The defendant would have us conclude that the big habitual criminal act is invalid on its face as prescribing cruel and u......
-
People v. Larson, 26961
...564 P.2d 411 (1977); People v. Bergstrom, Colo., 544 P.2d 396 (1975); People v. Thomas, Colo., 542 P.2d 387 (1975); Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320 (1958). These well-reasoned decisions are dispositive of appellant's A. Equal Protection. The appellant first contends that his ri......
-
People v. Bergstrom
...been specifically upheld in spite of its increased penalty provisions. Bernard v. Tinsley, 144 Colo. 244, 355 P.2d 1098; Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320. The legislature may, within broad limits, decide the penalty for each offense. People v. Fulmer, Colo., 524 P.2d 606; Trujil......
-
Colorado's Habitual Criminal Act: an Overview
...105, 544 P.2d 396 (1975); Bernard v. Tinsley, 144 Colo. 244, 355 P.2d 1098 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 830 (1961); Vigil v. People, 137 Colo. 161, 322 P.2d 320 (1958); Wright v. People, 116 Colo. 306, 181 P.2d 447 (1947); supra, note 6. 8. Bergstrom, supra, note 7. 9. 622 P.2d 547 (Colo.......