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, Richard Martinez, was convicted of burglary after being observed attempting to enter a neighbor's home without authorization and with the intent to commit theft. A witness, Angel Amesoli, saw Martinez and another man knocking on the door, attempting to remove a window screen, and eventually entering the home through the basement. The police were called, and Martinez was arrested nearby. The residents confirmed that Martinez did not have permission to enter their home.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the in-court identification was not tainted by suggestive pretrial circumstances, the defendant received effective legal representation, the amended criminal information conformed to the bind-over order, and the district court did not err in failing to excuse a juror for cause.
• Defendant-Appellant (Richard Martinez): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, his in-court identification was tainted by suggestive pretrial circumstances and should have been suppressed, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the amended criminal information did not conform to the bind-over order, requiring that his conviction be vacated, and the district court erred in failing to excuse a juror for cause.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for burglary.
• Whether the in-court identification of the defendant was tainted by suggestive pretrial circumstances.
• Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the amended criminal information conformed to the bind-over order.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to excuse a juror for cause.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for burglary.

Reasons

• Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court found substantial evidence supporting the verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for every element essential to a burglary conviction, including unauthorized entry and intent to commit theft (paras 3-7).
  Motion to Suppress Identification: The court determined that the in-court identification was admissible, finding sufficient indicia of reliability despite the suggestiveness of the pretrial identification procedure (paras 8-17).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court concluded that the defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, as he failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient or that it prejudiced his defense (paras 19-25).
  Magistrate Court Bind Over: The court rejected the defendant's argument that he was denied due process by the variance between the bind-over order and the State’s amended criminal information, noting that simple burglary is a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary and that the defendant had notice of the charge (paras 26-31).
  Trial Court’s Failure to Excuse a Juror for Cause: The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to excuse the juror for cause, as the juror affirmed she could be impartial and the defendant did not demonstrate bias (paras 32-34).