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 aggravated battery causing great bodily harm and battery as a petty misdemeanor. The incident involved the Defendant swinging at a Victim, striking him in the jaw, which led to the Victim falling, hitting his head on asphalt, going into seizures, being airlifted to a head trauma unit, and sustaining brain injuries. Another altercation occurred at a rehabilitation center involving the Defendant and others, including a Victim who was an employee at the center. During this altercation, the Defendant shouted at and struck the Victim, causing a knot on her hand.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's inadequate preparation and failure to conduct pre-witness interviews, request surveillance footage, find witnesses, call a defense expert witness, and file a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for violating the court's own six-month deadline to retry the case.
• Whether the jury improperly based its verdict on sympathy for one of the Victims.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) and battery (petty misdemeanor).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement and affirmed the convictions for aggravated battery (felony, great bodily harm) and battery (petty misdemeanor).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring):
  The court found the Defendant's claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel to be either not of record or related to trial strategy, which does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also noted that the Defendant failed to meet the burden of showing that counsel's performance was below that of a reasonably competent attorney. Regarding the motion to dismiss based on the six-month rule, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Savedra, which eliminated portions of Rule 5-604 NMRA, making the six-month timeframe in the mistrial order non-binding. On the issue of the jury's verdict being based on sympathy, the court found no adequate basis to impeach the verdict as the matter was not of record and jurors are presumed to follow the law as instructed. Lastly, the court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, as the jury could have reasonably relied on the evidence presented, including the severity of the Victim's injuries and the circumstances of the altercation at the rehabilitation center.