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 charged and convicted for contracting without a license. He argued that he was a wage-earning employee, which would exempt him from the licensing requirement. However, he was convicted as a sales representative of a contractor without a license, not as a contractor (paras 1, 4-6).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Defendant found guilty of contracting without a license and case remanded for sentencing (para 1).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge: After a bench trial de novo, Defendant was again found guilty of the same charge (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to find him a contractor as he was a wage-earning employee, exempt from the licensing requirement (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that the Defendant was guilty of acting in the capacity of a contractor or a sales representative of a contractor without a license (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the Defendant as a sales representative of an unlicensed contractor (para 8).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring): The Court applied a two-step process to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in favor of the district court’s judgment and determining if it supports the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the Defendant was convicted on the basis of being a sales representative of an unlicensed contractor, not as a contractor himself. The Defendant's argument focused on his status as a contractor and failed to address his conviction as a sales representative, which does not require the same licensing exemption as a contractor. The Court concluded that the Defendant waived any argument regarding his status by not specifically challenging the finding that he was a sales representative. Therefore, the district court's finding was deemed conclusive, and the appeal was dismissed (paras 3-7).