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

• Late one night, Theresa Gallegos was alerted by her son to a suspicious commotion at her neighbor's house. Upon investigation, she saw the defendant, Narcizo Soto, his grandmother Maria Soto, and his girlfriend on the porch. The defendant twice placed a small handgun to his grandmother's head. Gallegos intervened, calling out to Maria Soto and dialing 911. As Maria Soto walked towards Gallegos, the defendant threatened Gallegos and fired two shots into the air. Police responded, and spent shell casings were found near the scene (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of negligent use of a deadly weapon. Additionally, contended that his convictions for two counts of negligent use of a deadly weapon violated double jeopardy principles (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Maintained that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions and argued against the double jeopardy claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and for one conviction of negligent use of a deadly weapon.
• Whether the defendant's convictions for two counts of negligent use of a deadly weapon violate double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of negligent use of a deadly weapon.
• The court reversed one conviction for negligent use of a deadly weapon on double jeopardy grounds (para 1).

Reasons

• The court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, J. Miles Hanisee, and Kristina Bogardus, found sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, citing the defendant's actions and threats towards Gallegos and the firing of the gun as supporting Gallegos's belief of imminent harm (paras 8-13). Regarding the negligent use of a deadly weapon, the court found sufficient evidence for one conviction based on the defendant discharging the firearm near dwellings. However, the court reversed the second conviction for negligent use of a deadly weapon on double jeopardy grounds, determining that the defendant's actions constituted a single course of conduct not warranting multiple punishments under the same statute (paras 14-28).