AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Defendant Joseph Vigil, along with Frankie Garduno, drove to an Allsup’s gas station in Espanola. Garduno exited the vehicle, brandished a gun at Cody Tapia and Michelle Radosevich, and demanded money. Tapia complied. Witnesses testified that Vigil, who remained in the driver's seat, attempted to conceal his identity with a sweatshirt and urged Garduno to hurry. After Tapia subdued Garduno, Vigil fled on foot but was later apprehended by police (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial was denied. The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 15, 2016, after remand from the Court of Appeals for the limited purpose of obtaining written findings on speedy trial considerations (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that his right to a speedy trial was violated due to the delay exceeding the presumptively prejudicial threshold. Argued that the delay was improperly classified, his demands for a speedy trial were ignored, and he suffered prejudice due to his PTSD diagnosis and changes in witness testimony (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Acknowledged the delay was presumptively prejudicial but argued that the balancing of factors did not favor the defendant. Claimed that part of the delay was neutral or weighed against the defendant, and that the defendant's speedy trial demands were pro forma and did not show particularized prejudice (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery (paras 5, 33).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial.
• The Court of Appeals also affirmed Defendant’s convictions for armed robbery and attempt to commit armed robbery (paras 32, 39).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Hanisee, conducted a de novo review of the Barker factors for analyzing a speedy trial claim. The court found the delay of over twenty-six months to be presumptively prejudicial but weighed the reasons for delay neutrally between the parties and the State. The court acknowledged Defendant's assertions of his right to a speedy trial but did not find them to weigh heavily in his favor. The court also concluded that Defendant did not demonstrate particularized prejudice from the delay. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the convictions, the court found substantial evidence that Defendant helped, encouraged, or caused the armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, affirming the convictions (paras 5-38).