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, Gregory Marvin Hobbs, was involved in an altercation on June 15, 2012, during which he shot and killed Ruben Archuleta, Jr. (Ruben Jr.) and Ruben Archuleta, Sr. (Victim). The State did not prosecute the Defendant for the death of Ruben Jr., deeming it legally justified, but charged and convicted him for the voluntary manslaughter of Victim. The Defendant appealed his conviction, raising issues regarding the partial closure of the courtroom during a witness's testimony, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the denial of his request for a new trial (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated by the partial courtroom closure during a witness's testimony, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not retaining or calling a bullet trajectory expert, and contended that the district court erred in denying his request for a new trial on grounds of juror bias, newly discovered evidence, and the timing of a break during his closing argument (paras 3, 8, 17, 24, 28, 33).
• State: Asserted that the Defendant did not preserve the issue of the courtroom closure for appellate review, stipulated to the closure, and thus waived the issue on appeal. Also, opposed the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and argued against the grounds for a new trial presented by the Defendant (paras 8, 9, 24, 28, 33).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to a public trial was violated by the partial courtroom closure during the testimony of a witness.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a new trial.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for voluntary manslaughter with a firearm enhancement (para 1).

Reasons

• Court Composition: The decision was authored by Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil and Judge Michael D. Bustamante concurring.
  Courtroom Closure: The court found that the Defendant waived his right to a public trial by stipulating to the partial courtroom closure during the witness's testimony, thus his Sixth Amendment claim was not preserved for appellate review, and the structural error argument failed (paras 10-15).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court concluded that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel as he failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he suffered prejudice as a result of the alleged deficiency. The court suggested that such claims are more appropriately brought through habeas corpus petitions (paras 17-23).
  Denial of Request for New Trial: The court held that the Defendant did not demonstrate juror bias, that the evidence regarding bullet trajectory expertise did not constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial, and that the timing of the break during closing arguments did not rise to the level of fundamental error. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a new trial (paras 24-36).