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

• Around midnight on July 23, 2013, the Defendant broke into the Gullien home in Deming, New Mexico, through a bathroom window. The Defendant did not dispute his entry but claimed he was seeking refuge due to paranoia induced by several days of methamphetamine use and fear of harm from people he was with. During the entry, he encountered the teenage daughter of the homeowner, leading to a confrontation where the homeowner detained the Defendant until police arrived. The Defendant was intoxicated and later claimed at the police station he intended to steal jewelry, contradicting his trial defense of seeking shelter (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that flaws in the jury instructions constituted fundamental error (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental error regarding jury instructions were without merit (paras 11-25).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether flaws in the jury instructions constitute fundamental error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges Timothy L. Garcia and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found no merit in the Defendant's claims. The Court held that the Defendant's counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, focusing instead on the Defendant's intent to seek safety, which was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The Court also found no ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the jury instructions, noting that the general intent instruction's use and placement were not erroneous and that any error related to the breaking and entering charge was harmless. The Court concluded that the Defendant had not established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and that there was no fundamental error in the jury instructions that would necessitate reversal to prevent a miscarriage of justice (paras 11-25).