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 tried for three counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and three counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) for acts committed against his girlfriend's granddaughter, B.G. The jury convicted the Defendant of one count of CSCM in the second degree but was hung on the remaining counts. A mistrial was declared on those counts, and the Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment for the CSCM conviction. The sentencing was influenced by the judge's confusion of the case with another, which was later corrected by defense counsel. The Defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence, which was granted, reducing the sentence to ten years (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee (State): Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the sentence because the motion to reduce the sentence was filed past the 90-day limit set by Rule 5-801 NMRA.
• Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant: Argued that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and that the late filing of the motion to reduce the sentence was due to counsel's error, not his own. He also contended that the district court had extended the time limit for filing such a motion (paras 6-8, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's motion to reduce his sentence filed past the 90-day limit.
• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction for CSCM in the second degree (paras 6-13).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to consider the Defendant's motion to reduce his sentence and the subsequent reduction of the sentence to ten years of imprisonment was affirmed.
• The Defendant's conviction for CSCM in the second degree was also affirmed (para 14).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jennifer L. Attrep writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Megan P. Duffy and Gerald E. Baca, found that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's motion to reduce his sentence. This was because the district court had properly extended the time limit under Rule 5-104(B), allowing the motion to be considered timely. The Court rejected the State's arguments against this extension, including the absence of a written order and the difference between the reason for the extension and the basis of the motion. Regarding the Defendant's cross-appeal, the Court held that inconsistencies in witness testimony are for the jury to resolve, affirming the conviction based on substantial evidence (paras 7-13).