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 of aggravated battery, conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, and shooting at or from a motor vehicle. These convictions were appealed on the grounds that they violated the Defendant's constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.

Procedural History

• State v. Dominguez, 2005-NMSC-001: Held that convictions for aggravated battery and shooting at or from a motor vehicle arising from unitary conduct does not violate double jeopardy.
• May 2, 2011 Opinion: Affirmed the Defendant's convictions and denied the motion to add the argument that his convictions violated double jeopardy based on Dominguez.
• State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020: Overruled Dominguez and held that unitary conduct resulting in convictions for both manslaughter and shooting at or from a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm violates double jeopardy.
• Supreme Court, (N/A): Granted Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari on the double jeopardy issue, held a decision in abeyance pending its disposition in Montoya, then quashed the writ of certiorari and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of Montoya.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the convictions for aggravated battery and shooting at or from a motor vehicle violated the constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Appellee (State): Contended that Montoya did not specifically overrule the part of Dominguez which holds that convictions for shooting at or from a motor vehicle and aggravated battery do not violate double jeopardy.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and shooting at or from a motor vehicle violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery is reversed, and the case is remanded for that conviction to be vacated and for Defendant to be resentenced.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring): The Court, upon reconsideration in light of State v. Montoya, concluded that the Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and shooting at or from a motor vehicle violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy. Despite the State's argument that Montoya did not specifically overrule Dominguez in regards to aggravated battery and shooting at or from a motor vehicle not violating double jeopardy, the Court found that Montoya's reasoning invalidated Dominguez's holding on the matter. The Court remained unpersuaded by the State's argument and reversed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery, remanding the case for vacating that conviction and resentencing the Defendant.