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 (great bodily harm) following an incident where he and his girlfriend were approached by the alleged victim and another individual who started banging on the windows and yelling at them while they were sitting in the Defendant's truck. The Defendant asserts that he acted in self-defense during this confrontation.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; sought to amend the docketing statement to argue the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense, that the admission of testimony by two witnesses was improper, and that the district court erred by enhancing his sentence based on three prior felony convictions (paras 2-3, 6-8).
• Appellee (State): Argued in support of the conviction, maintaining that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm).
• Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense.
• Whether the admission of testimony by two witnesses was improper under Rule 11-403 NMRA.
• Whether the district court erred by enhancing the Defendant's sentence based on three prior felony convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement and affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) (para 10).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring:
  The Court found the Defendant abandoned the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction by not addressing it in his memorandum in opposition to the Court's notice of proposed disposition (para 2). The Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement to include additional issues because the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the issues were preserved for appeal or viable for review. Specifically, the Court noted the absence of a tendered written instruction for self-defense, making the issue unpreserved (para 4). The Court also found the Defendant's motion to amend non-viable regarding the admission of certain testimony and the enhancement of his sentence due to insufficient demonstration of error preservation and lack of detailed records to confirm the viability of challenging one of the prior felony convictions (paras 7-8).