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

• A week before a fatal drive-by shooting in Albuquerque's south valley, Defendant Lorenzo Velarde had a physical altercation with Dominic Llamas and an encounter with John Valenzuela (Decedent). On the day of the shooting, Velarde, driving with Roberto Gonzales and two others, identified one of the males playing football on Cordelia Street as someone he had argued with previously. After an exchange of words and gang-related challenges, Gonzales fired multiple shots from the vehicle Velarde was driving, resulting in Valenzuela's death from gunshot wounds. Velarde fled the scene, leading to a high-speed chase and his eventual apprehension by law enforcement (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections, contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts, and raised issues regarding instructional error, the admissibility of gang expert testimony, amenability to treatment, and juror misconduct (paras 8-32).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy, that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, and defended the district court's decisions regarding jury instructions, expert testimony, amenability to treatment, and the denial of a new trial based on juror misconduct (paras 8-32).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions violated double jeopardy protections.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts.
• Whether the district court committed instructional error.
• Whether the district court erred in permitting the State’s gang expert to testify.
• Whether the district court erred in finding the Defendant was not amenable to treatment.
• Whether the district court erred in denying a new trial based on juror misconduct.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed all but one of the Defendant's convictions, reversing his conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The court also directed the district court to vacate the Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit shooting from a motor vehicle (para 33).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Stephen G. French, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Henry M. Bohnhoff concurring, held that:
  The Defendant's conviction for aggravated fleeing and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer violated his double jeopardy rights, leading to the vacating of the lesser offense (paras 10-11).
  The firearm enhancements to the Defendant's sentences did not violate double jeopardy rights (para 12).
  The conviction for conspiracy to commit shooting from a motor vehicle was vacated due to double jeopardy concerns, as it was merged for sentencing with another count but not formally vacated (para 13).
  The convictions for aggravated assault did not violate double jeopardy rights, as they were based on distinct victims and actions (paras 14-16).
  The second trial did not constitute a successive prosecution implicating double jeopardy, as the first trial ended in a mistrial for the charges in question (paras 17-20).
  There was no instructional error found in the jury instructions provided during the trial (paras 21-25).
  Sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's convictions, as the jury could reasonably infer the Defendant shared the intent to commit the crimes based on his actions and the circumstances (paras 26-27).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State’s gang expert to testify, finding the Defendant was not amenable to treatment, or denying a motion for a new trial based on allegations of juror misconduct (paras 28-32).