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, Randy Sorrelhorse, was involved in an incident where he knocked on Jimmy Arellano's apartment door asking for cigarettes. After being told to leave, the defendant returned, threatened Arellano with a knife, and attempted to force entry into the apartment by kicking and banging on the door. During the struggle, the defendant managed to partially enter the apartment. This led to his conviction for breaking and entering and criminal damage to property.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, August 29, 2011, No. 33,142.
• Released for Publication October 11, 2011.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for breaking and entering and that his conviction for criminal damage to property violates his right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Defended the sufficiency of the evidence for the breaking and entering conviction and argued against the double jeopardy claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for breaking and entering.
• Whether the defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property violates his right to be free from double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The conviction for breaking and entering was affirmed.
• The conviction for criminal damage to property was vacated due to double jeopardy concerns.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court found that the evidence, particularly the testimony that the defendant's foot entered the apartment and he pushed the occupants back, was sufficient to support the conviction for breaking and entering (paras 5-8).
  Double Jeopardy: The court applied a two-part test to determine if the defendant's conduct was unitary and if the legislature intended to create separately punishable offenses. It concluded that the defendant's actions constituted unitary conduct and that the legislature did not intend for breaking and entering and criminal damage to property to be separately punishable offenses in this context. Therefore, convicting the defendant of both charges violated his right to be free from double jeopardy (paras 9-21).