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 found guilty by a jury of two counts of homicide by vehicle due to reckless driving. The case involves the Defendant's appeal against his judgment and sentence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that (1) the requirement to use either an extraordinary writ or interlocutory appeal to challenge grand jury proceedings violates fundamental due process, and (2) the remote sentencing via video conferencing due to the pandemic-related order violated his due process rights by disadvantaging his ability to obtain leniency and effectively present allocution (paras 3-5).
• Appellee: The State's specific arguments in response to the Defendant's submissions are not detailed in the provided text. However, it can be inferred that the State supported the trial court's decisions and opposed the Defendant's arguments.

Legal Issues

• Whether the requirement to use either an extraordinary writ or interlocutory appeal to challenge grand jury proceedings violates fundamental due process.
• Whether conducting the sentencing hearing remotely via video conferencing violated the Defendant's due process rights.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the District Court, rejecting the Defendant's arguments regarding the grand jury proceedings and remote sentencing (para 6).

Reasons

• The decision was delivered by Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Megan P. Duffy concurring. The Court held that:
  It is bound by New Mexico Supreme Court precedent and cannot find that the current law regarding grand jury challenges violates due process. The Court declined the Defendant's request to find the appellate options for challenging a grand jury presentation as violating due process (para 4).
  The Defendant did not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in conducting the sentencing hearing remotely. The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments that the remote sentencing violated his due process rights, noting that the Defendant did not challenge the district court's findings that supported its decision for remote sentencing nor did he demonstrate prejudice from this decision (para 5).