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, Philbert Vanwinkle, was convicted of aggravated burglary and tampering with evidence. His convictions followed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and his subsequent entry of a conditional guilty plea (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge, June 5, 2017: Convictions for aggravated burglary and tampering with evidence were upheld, and the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued for the suppression of evidence, which was not detailed in the decision (N/A).
• Appellee: The State, through its response to this Court's notice of proposed disposition, indicated it did not intend to file a memorandum in opposition to the Court's notice proposing to summarily reverse the decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence against the Defendant should have been suppressed, leading to the reversal of his convictions for aggravated burglary and tampering with evidence (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the Defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary and tampering with evidence following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and his entry of a conditional guilty plea (para 2).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Timothy L. Garcia and J. Miles Hanisee concurring:
  The decision to reverse the Defendant's convictions was based on the reasons set forth in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The State's decision not to oppose the Court's proposed reversal played a role in the final decision. The specific reasons for the Court's initial proposal to reverse, as well as the State's reasons for not opposing it, are not detailed in the memorandum opinion provided (para 1).