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 case involves the Defendant, Logan Reavis, who was convicted for second-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP II). The conviction was based on the victim's testimony that she suffered severe mental anguish as a result of the assault, to the extent of being suicidal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the testimony presented supported all of the essential elements of the offense, including the victim's severe mental anguish resulting from the assault.
• Defendant-Appellant (Logan Reavis): Contended that the State failed to adequately establish the element of mental anguish and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the submission of the lesser included offense of CSP II.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the element of mental anguish necessary for a conviction of CSP II.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the submission of the lesser included offense of CSP II.

Disposition

• The conviction of the Defendant for second-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP II) is affirmed.

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Julie J. Vargas and Daniel J. Gallegos, Judges concurring, provided the reasoning for the court's decision. The court found that the victim's testimony about her severe mental anguish was sufficient to support the conviction for CSP II (para 2). Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the Defendant failed to demonstrate both the error on the part of the counsel and the prejudice resulting from that error. The court noted that the record was insufficient to establish what transpired below regarding the submission of the lesser included offense of CSP II and that even assuming a failure to consult, the Defendant did not establish how this affected the outcome of the trial negatively (paras 3-7).