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, Alejandro Azamar-Nolasco, was convicted of two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner and tampering with evidence. The weapons, a razor and a "shank," were found in his cell but not on his person. The State argued that the Defendant had constructive possession of these items, supported by evidence including DNA matching the Defendant on the shank. The Defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence, raised double jeopardy concerns regarding his convictions, and argued that the lack of a special verdict form for the tampering charge constituted fundamental error.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for possession of a deadly weapon and tampering with evidence. Contended that double jeopardy principles were violated by convicting him of two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner and by convicting him after receiving administrative punishment for the same conduct. Also argued that the failure to provide a special verdict form for tampering with evidence resulted in fundamental error.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's convictions and that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles. Argued that the administrative punishment and subsequent criminal prosecution did not infringe upon double jeopardy protections. Contended that the district court did not commit fundamental error by not providing a special verdict form for the tampering charge.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner and tampering with evidence.
• Whether convicting the Defendant of two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner and after receiving administrative punishment for the same conduct violated double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the failure to provide a special verdict form for tampering with evidence resulted in fundamental error.

Disposition

• The court reversed and remanded for one of the convictions for possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner to be vacated due to a violation of double jeopardy principles.
• The court affirmed the Defendant's remaining convictions.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge; GERALD E. BACA, Judge; MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation: The panel found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, rejecting the Defendant's argument of insufficient evidence (paras 2-8). The court agreed with the Defendant that convicting him of two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner violated double jeopardy principles and remanded for one of the convictions to be vacated (paras 9-20). However, the court disagreed that the Defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated by the administrative punishment followed by criminal prosecution, citing precedent that administrative sanctions do not bar subsequent criminal proceedings (paras 21-22). Lastly, the court found no fundamental error in the district court's failure to provide a special verdict form for the tampering charge, as the jury was explicitly instructed on the specific charge related to the tampering (paras 23-24).