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 by a jury for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and was sentenced to probation (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge, April 26, 2017: Convicted for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and sentenced to probation.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the Court's opinion in State v. Jimenez, which interpreted the same statutory language differently, required reversal of his conviction (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Indicated that it would not be filing a memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary reversal (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer should be reversed in light of the Court's interpretation of the same statutory language in State v. Jimenez.

Disposition

• The Defendant’s conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer was reversed (para 2).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Timothy L. Garcia, James J. Wechsler, and Jonathan B. Sutin, initially proposed to affirm the Defendant's conviction. However, upon the Defendant's motion for rehearing, which highlighted the Court's opposite conclusion in State v. Jimenez regarding the same statutory language, the panel was persuaded to reconsider. Acknowledging the inconsistency and agreeing with the Defendant's argument, the panel decided to reverse the Defendant's conviction, demonstrating the Court's commitment to maintaining consistency in legal interpretations across cases (paras 1-2).