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 first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence, following a jury trial where it was determined he shot and killed Andrea Larez and shot and injured Crystal Brady. The Supreme Court vacated the convictions for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, remanding for entry of judgment on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder (para 1-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Tafoya, 2012-NMSC-030, 285 P.3d 604: The New Mexico Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, remanding for entry of judgment on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the district court erred by not including a firearm enhancement in Defendant’s sentence for second-degree murder and by failing to include an habitual offender enhancement in Defendant’s sentences for tampering with evidence and felon in possession of a firearm (para 5).
• Defendant: Contended that the district court properly refused to enhance the sentence for second-degree murder with a firearm enhancement because the jury did not find that the offense was committed with a firearm. Also, opposed the summary reversal proposed by the court regarding the habitual offender enhancement but acknowledged that it is mandatory if pursued by the prosecutor (paras 6, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not including a firearm enhancement in Defendant’s sentence for second-degree murder.
• Whether the district court erred by not including an habitual offender enhancement in Defendant’s sentences for tampering with evidence and felon in possession of a firearm.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of including a one-year firearm enhancement in Defendant’s sentence for second-degree murder and a four-year habitual offender enhancement in Defendant’s sentences for tampering with evidence and felon in possession (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Fry, J., and Vigil, J., concurring): The Court found that the district court erred in its sentencing decisions. For the firearm enhancement, the Court concluded that the jury's verdict on first-degree murder, which was based on shooting from a motor vehicle, inherently included a finding that a firearm was used, satisfying the statutory requirement for the enhancement. Regarding the habitual offender enhancement, the Court noted that it is mandatory if pursued by the prosecutor, and the State had indeed sought this enhancement at resentencing. The Court's decision was grounded in statutory interpretation and application of sentencing law, reviewed de novo, and supported by precedent emphasizing the mandatory nature of the habitual offender enhancement when pursued by the State (paras 5-12).