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 found guilty by a jury of attempt to commit first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, child abuse, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The appeal challenges the amendment of the indictment to include alternative theories on certain counts, the addition of a firearm enhancement, and the sentencing for child abuse.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in allowing the amendment of the grand jury indictment to include alternative theories on Counts 1 and 2, and in permitting the State to add a firearm enhancement to Count 1. Also contended that there was an error in sentencing for child abuse, asserting that the jury did not make a finding that it was his second or subsequent offense.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Agreed with the limited remand for correction of the judgment and sentence but otherwise supported the trial court's decisions regarding the amendment of the indictment, the firearm enhancement, and the sentencing for child abuse.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the State’s motion to amend the grand jury indictment to include alternative theories on Counts 1 and 2.
• Whether the district court erred in permitting the State to add a firearm enhancement to Count 1.
• Whether the district court erred in sentencing the Defendant for second-degree intentional child abuse when he had been indicted on third-degree negligent child abuse.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court but remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment and sentence regarding the child abuse charge.

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (SUTIN, J., and ZAMORA, J., concurring):
  The Court found that amending an indictment to include alternative theories of a crime does not add a different offense and is permissible under Rule 5-204 NMRA, rejecting the Defendant's assertion of error based on State v. Lucero and distinguishing the present case from State v. Trivitt (paras 2-4).
  The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the amendment of the indictment to include alternative theories of first-degree murder and aggravated burglary, holding that the Defendant was not prejudiced by the amendment as he was apprised of the State's intent prior to trial (paras 2-6).
  Regarding the firearm enhancement, the Court concluded that the Defendant received sufficient notice of the State’s intent to seek the firearm enhancement, rejecting the Defendant's argument (para 7).
  The Court addressed the Defendant's change in argument concerning the child abuse conviction, initially challenging the district court's sentencing for a different degree of child abuse than indicted. The Court deemed the original issue abandoned and rejected the new issue raised by the Defendant, denying the motion to amend the docketing statement (paras 8-9).
  The Court affirmed the district court's decisions but remanded for the correction of a clerical error in the judgment and sentence regarding the child abuse charge, emphasizing that the Defendant was tried for, convicted of, and sentenced consistent with the charge he was indicted on, except for a clerical error listing the offense incorrectly (paras 8-10).