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, Michelle Garner, who was convicted for battery on a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer following an incident at her daughter's home. The incident occurred when police, assisting in a Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) investigation, decided to remove Garner's grandchildren from the home. Garner attempted to prevent this by physically confronting the officers, resulting in her shoving, punching, and kicking them during the altercation (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

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

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles and that the sentencing was appropriate based on the Defendant's actions and the need for mental health services (paras 8-27).
• Defendant-Appellant (Michelle Garner): Contended that her convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery on a peace officer against Sergeant Prudencio violate double jeopardy principles. Also argued that fundamental error occurred during sentencing when the district court considered facts from a different case (paras 8, 21).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and battery on a peace officer violate double jeopardy principles (para 8).
• Whether fundamental error occurred during sentencing when the district court considered facts from a different case (para 21).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer based on double jeopardy principles and affirmed the sentencing decision, remanding to the district court to vacate the Defendant’s conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, and to resentence the Defendant accordingly (para 31).

Reasons

• JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the Defendant's conduct was unitary, meaning her actions during the incident were not sufficiently separated by time, place, or intent to justify separate convictions for battery on a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. This conclusion was based on the similarity, sequence, and lack of intervening events between the acts of battery and resisting, all motivated by the Defendant's goal to prevent the removal of her grandchild (paras 10-20). Regarding the sentencing issue, the court determined there was no fundamental error. It noted that the district court is permitted to take judicial notice of its own records and that the sentencing did not rely on unnotified aggravating circumstances nor did it enhance the Defendant's sentence based on the disputed facts. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of sentencing and found no due process violation in the district court's reference to events from a different case during sentencing (paras 21-30).