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

• The Defendant, Brandon Gage Vigil, entered a plea agreement with the State during his trial, pleading guilty to two counts of first-degree willful and deliberate murder. At sentencing, he was allowed to change his plea to no contest. An Addendum to the Plea and Disposition Agreement was produced, allowing the district court discretion to impose two consecutive life sentences, which it did. The Defendant later sought to have his sentences run concurrently, a request the district court denied (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the imposition of a sixty-year sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and sought to have his consecutive life sentences run concurrently instead (para 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant waived his right to direct appeal by entering into a plea agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal, provided the court's sentence was imposed according to the terms of the agreement (para 2).
• Whether the precedent set in State v. Chavarria should be overruled as argued by the Defendant, based on his interpretation of State v. Rudy B. (para 5).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico dismissed the appeal without prejudice, allowing the Defendant to seek relief through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (para 7).

Reasons

• THOMSON, Justice, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice; BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice; C. SHANNON BACON, Justice, concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to direct appeal as part of his plea agreement, which explicitly stated the waiver of the right to appeal if the sentence was imposed according to the agreement's terms (paras 1-2).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument to overrule State v. Chavarria, affirming that a defendant who pleads guilty or no contest waives the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, including the right to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence on direct appeal. The Court clarified that State v. Rudy B. did not question but rather approved the holding in Chavarria (paras 4-5).
  The Court noted that the Defendant could have reserved his right to appeal any sentence imposed but chose not to. It was also noted that the Defendant did not develop a constitutional argument beyond his assertion that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court suggested that the Defendant could pursue relief through a habeas petition, where issues such as the lack of individualized review concerning his developmental maturity and amenability to rehabilitation could be properly developed (paras 6-7).