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 multiple crimes following a late-night residential burglary in Clovis, New Mexico. The incident involved the defendant and three others, including two minors, planning and executing a burglary at the residence where the victim was staying. During the burglary, a struggle ensued, the victim was assaulted, and the defendant discharged a firearm at the victim as he fled the scene. The police were alerted and subsequently arrested the defendant and his accomplices at a nearby residence.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence for the kidnaping and contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) convictions, improper application of firearm sentencing enhancements, erroneous designation of convictions as serious violent offenses, violation of double jeopardy principles with the CDM convictions, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper inclusion of a probationary term in the written judgment.
• Appellee: Conceded that the district court erroneously imposed a firearm enhancement on the conspiracy conviction and that two crimes were not enumerated in the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA) and thus could not be punished as serious violent offenses.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for kidnaping and CDM.
• Whether the district court improperly applied firearm sentencing enhancements to the convictions for conspiracy and CDM.
• Whether the district court erred in designating five of the defendant's convictions as serious violent offenses.
• Whether the defendant's CDM convictions violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.
• Whether prosecutorial misconduct during opening and closing statements deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
• Whether a probationary term was improperly included in the written judgment and sentence.

Disposition

• The one-year firearm sentencing enhancement on the defendant’s conspiracy conviction was vacated.
• The designation of the defendant’s convictions in Counts I through V as serious violent offenses was reversed, and the case was remanded for the district court to consider and enter appropriate factual findings as to whether the defendant’s second-degree kidnapping and aggravated assault convictions were serious violent offenses.
• Affirmed on all other issues.

Reasons

• Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court found substantial evidence supporting the verdicts for kidnaping and CDM, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict (paras 1-2).
  Firearm Sentencing Enhancements: The court agreed with the appellant and the appellee that the firearm enhancement on the conspiracy conviction was erroneous and vacated it. However, it affirmed the firearm sentencing enhancements on the CDM convictions (paras 3-4).
  Serious Violent Offenses: The court vacated the designation of aggravated burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary as serious violent offenses, acknowledging the appellee's concession. It reversed the designation of second-degree kidnapping and aggravated assault as serious violent offenses due to the lack of appropriate factual findings and remanded for reconsideration (paras 5-6).
  Double Jeopardy: The court rejected the appellant's double jeopardy claim regarding the CDM convictions, finding sufficient indicia of distinctness to justify separate counts (paras 7-8).
  Prosecutorial Misconduct: The court did not find the prosecutor's remarks during opening and closing statements to constitute misconduct that deprived the defendant of a fair trial (paras 9-10).
  Probation Provision in Written Judgment and Sentence: The court found no error in the inclusion of a term of supervised probation in the written judgment and sentence, noting the district court's authority to modify its oral ruling before the entry of the written judgment (para 11).