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 for violating a protective order and sentenced to one year of probation following a jury trial. The violation occurred when the Defendant knowingly entered a protected zone at a local Walmart pharmacy area, where the protected party was present, despite being aware of the protective order's restrictions.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Angie K. Schneider, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove a knowing violation of the protective order, relying on video evidence to claim unawareness of the protected party's presence during the violation.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for knowingly violating a protective order.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting the protective order without redaction and if such admission constituted plain error.
• Whether the prosecutor's conduct in emphasizing the contents of the protective order constituted misconduct.
• Whether the Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the admission of the un-redacted protective order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the Defendant's conviction for violating an order of protection.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Michael E. Vigil concurring, held that:
  Sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction, as the jury could reasonably conclude from the testimony and evidence presented that the Defendant knew he was violating the protective order (paras 2-5).
  The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied because the issues raised were not viable. The Court found no plain error in the district court's admission of the protective order without redaction, nor in the prosecutor's emphasis on its contents. The Court also did not find a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the admission of the un-redacted protective order (paras 6-14).