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

• On June 16, 2019, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, police officers responded to a call about a man, later identified as the Defendant, asleep behind the wheel of a pickup truck. Upon arrival, officers observed the Defendant unconscious with a handgun in the passenger seat. When officers attempted to remove the Defendant from the vehicle, he resisted, grabbed an officer, and fled the scene, leading to a high-speed chase. This chase ended with the Defendant's vehicle crashing into another vehicle, after which the Defendant attempted to flee on foot but was apprehended (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that several convictions were based on the same conduct, violating double jeopardy principles, and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction of leaving the scene of an accident (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy and that the evidence was sufficient to support all convictions (paras 5-29).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for resisting, evading or obstructing an officer and for aggravated fleeing a police officer violate double jeopardy (para 5).
• Whether the conduct underlying the Defendant’s convictions for battery upon a peace officer and aggravated assault upon a peace officer is unitary and was not intended by the Legislature to be separately punished (para 11).
• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for leaving the scene of an accident and aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer violate double jeopardy (para 20).
• Whether the conduct underlying the Defendant’s convictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer and aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer was unitary, and whether the Legislature intended to punish the two crimes separately (para 23).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the Defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident (para 26).

Disposition

• The court vacated the Defendant’s convictions for resisting, evading or obstructing an officer and for aggravated fleeing a peace officer due to double jeopardy violations (para 30).
• The court affirmed the remaining convictions (para 30).

Reasons

• YOHALEM, Judge (IVES and WRAY, JJ., concurring):
  The court found that the Defendant’s convictions for resisting, evading or obstructing an officer and for aggravated fleeing a police officer were based on unitary conduct and thus violated double jeopardy principles, necessitating their vacation (paras 16-19).
  It was determined that the conduct underlying the Defendant’s convictions for battery upon a peace officer and aggravated assault upon a peace officer was not unitary, and thus, there was no double jeopardy violation (paras 11-15).
  The court concluded that the Defendant’s convictions for leaving the scene of an accident and aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer did not violate double jeopardy because the conduct necessary to prove each crime was different and distinct (paras 20-22).
  The court agreed with the Defendant that the conduct underlying his convictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer and aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer was unitary and that the Legislature did not intend for separate punishment for these offenses, leading to the vacation of the conviction for aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer (paras 23-25).
  The court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident, distinguishing the case from precedent and focusing on the statutory requirements (paras 26-29).