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 was convicted for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery on a peace officer. The incident occurred when the Defendant approached an ambulance, did not comply with an officer's instruction to move away, resisted the officer's attempt to move her, and subsequently shoved the officer while screaming obscenities.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Angie K. Schneider, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the convictions for both resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery on a peace officer violate double jeopardy due to being based on the same conduct. Also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for battery on a peace officer and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for habitual offender sentencing purposes.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Acknowledged the facts but argued that the Defendant's intent changed from physical resistance to engaging in a physical confrontation out of anger, thus constituting separate offenses. The State also maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support both the conviction for battery on a peace officer and the habitual offender sentence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery on a peace officer violate double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for battery on a peace officer.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the habitual offender sentence.

Disposition

• Affirmed the conviction for battery on a peace officer.
• Vacated the conviction for resisting, evading, and obstructing.
• Affirmed the habitual offender sentence.

Reasons

• Zamora, J., with Bohnhoff, J., and Kiehne, J., concurring, held that the Defendant's conduct was unitary, as the acts were not separated by time or space, and the Defendant had the same objective throughout the incident. The court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to create separately punishable offenses for the same conduct, thus the convictions violated the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy (paras 2-7). However, the court found substantial evidence supporting the conviction for battery on a peace officer, as the Defendant intentionally touched or applied force to the officer. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the habitual offender sentence, as the State made a prima facie case with certified copies of judgments and sentences, and the Defendant's admission of being a convicted felon (paras 8-14).