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 breaking and entering into Ms. Lucero's home, while being acquitted for larceny over $500 and criminal damage to property. The Defendant and Ms. Lucero had an "on again, off again" relationship and were just friends at the time of the incident. Ms. Lucero testified that they were allowed to enter each other's homes only when they gave each other notice, which the Defendant did not have at the time of entering her home (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge, convicting the Defendant for breaking and entering.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knowingly entered Ms. Lucero’s home without permission, an essential element of breaking and entering (para 2).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant knowingly entered Ms. Lucero’s home without permission (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, convicting the Defendant for breaking and entering (para 5).

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The Court found the Defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to be unpersuasive. It distinguished the case from State v. Rubio, noting that although Rubio challenged the breaking and entering instruction and not the sufficiency of the evidence directly, the Court in Rubio did assess the sufficiency of evidence regarding unauthorized entry. The Court emphasized that the breaking and entering statute does not require express denial of permission for entry to be unauthorized. It also highlighted that the Defendant and Ms. Lucero's relationship did not provide a "blanket permission" for entry, especially since they were just friends at the time of the incident and had a history of requiring notice before entering each other's homes. The Court concluded that the State presented sufficient evidence of unauthorized entry by the Defendant, including his damaging of Ms. Lucero's back door to gain entry (paras 2-4).