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 charged with concealing his identity and attempting to disarm a peace officer. The incident began when an officer was dispatched to investigate suspicious activity and found the Defendant jumping over a fence. The Defendant refused to provide identification when asked, leading to his arrest. Later, while being transported to the hospital for self-inflicted injuries, the Defendant attempted to grab a shotgun through the partition of the patrol car. The Defendant was convicted of both charges in a bench trial.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for concealing his identity and attempting to disarm a peace officer.
• Defendant-Appellant (Omar Ortiz): Contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt for each charge.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for concealing his identity.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for attempting to disarm a peace officer.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the Defendant for both concealing his identity and attempting to disarm a peace officer.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Kennedy with Chief Judge Vigil and Judge Garcia concurring, found that:
  Regarding Concealing Identity: The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The Defendant's refusal to provide identification, despite having a state-issued ID on his person, constituted concealment of identity. The Court also found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant, making the stop lawful (paras 10-19).
  Regarding Attempt to Disarm: The Court concluded that the evidence supported the conviction under Section 30-22-27(A)(2), which does not require the officer to be in immediate use of the firearm. The Defendant's act of grabbing the shotgun, despite being handcuffed, was sufficient to show an attempt to deprive the officer of the weapon's use (paras 20-29).
  The Court also directed a remand for the district court to revise the final judgment and sentence to accurately reflect the conviction under the correct statutory provision (para 30).