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

• After returning from work, Officer Julian Torrez discovered his son's off-road, kick-start Honda motorcycle, which he had parked by the side of their yard, missing. Upon searching, he found it in an alleyway near his home, hidden under grass. While reporting the incident to the police, he heard attempts to kick start the motorcycle from the alleyway. Investigating the noise, Officer Torrez found the Defendant, Courtney Pennington, wearing a motorcycle helmet and gloves, straddling the motorcycle, and attempting to kick start it. Upon being ordered to stop by Officer Torrez, the Defendant dropped the motorcycle and attempted to flee on foot but was apprehended and arrested by Officer Torrez (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, James M. Hudson, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's actions constituted the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle as defined by NMSA 1978, Section 30-16D-1(A)(1) (2009), emphasizing the intentional and non-consensual nature of the Defendant's actions (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant (Courtney Pennington): Challenged the conviction on three grounds: (1) arguing that the statute requires evidence of asportation, (2) contending that the off-road motorcycle does not qualify as a "vehicle" under the statute, and (3) claiming insufficient evidence to support the conviction (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the term "taking" in the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle statute requires proof of asportation.
• Whether an off-road motorcycle qualifies as a "vehicle" or "motor vehicle" under the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle statute.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (paras 4-10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court, finding the Defendant guilty of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (para 12).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., with Stephen G. French, J., and Daniel J. Gallegos, J., concurring:
  The court rejected the Defendant's argument that "taking" requires proof of asportation, distinguishing the text of the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle statute from the larceny statute and relying on the plain meaning of "take" as to get control into one's hands or possession (paras 5-8).
  The court determined that the off-road motorcycle qualifies as a "vehicle" and "motor vehicle" under the statute, referencing previous determinations that off-highway motor vehicles are considered vehicles for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Code (paras 9).
  The court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction, noting that the Defendant's actions of exercising control over the motorcycle without the owner's consent constituted unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (paras 10-11).