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

• A youthful offender was sentenced as an adult following convictions for second-degree murder, shooting at or from a motor vehicle causing no great bodily harm, and tampering with evidence. The offender appealed, challenging the denial of a pretrial request for a jury determination on his amenability to treatment as a juvenile and the requirement for the State to prove his non-amenability beyond a reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando Macias, District Judge.
• The Court of Appeals stayed briefing pending the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Rudy B., which reversed the Court of Appeals. Upon the Supreme Court's decision, the stay was lifted, and the case was reassigned to the summary calendar.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying his pretrial request for a jury determination of his amenability to treatment as a juvenile and to require that the State prove his non-amenability beyond a reasonable doubt. Also argued that the district court improperly denied Defendant’s notice of peremptory excusal.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant's pretrial request for a jury determination of his amenability to treatment as a juvenile.
• Whether the district court improperly denied the Defendant's notice of peremptory excusal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendant's motion for a jury determination on his amenability to treatment and the denial of the Defendant's peremptory excusal.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial extending to amenability determinations in youthful offender proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Rudy B. as controlling precedent. The Court also found no persuasive argument from the Defendant that the denial of his late excusal of Judge Macias was sufficient to warrant a mistrial, referencing State v. White for the principle that two separate criminal cases charging identical offenses against the same defendant will be considered the same case for peremptory challenge purposes. The Court noted that the rules do not reflect an intent to allow criminal defendants and juveniles accused of delinquent acts multiple opportunities to exercise peremptory excusals of judges.