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, Dennis J. May, was convicted for violations of the Torrance County, N.M., Zoning Ordinance and the Torrance County, N.M., Solid Waste Ordinance related to the use and condition of his property. In 2014, a county code enforcement officer inspected the Defendant's property, leading to citations for storing materials related to his service business in a manner not compliant with the ordinances. The Defendant's property was found to have over twenty vehicles that appeared inoperative, along with dilapidated mobile homes, toys, phone booths, broken-down appliances, tires, mattresses, and other items classified as "salvage material" (paras 2, 8-9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support both convictions; claimed ineffective assistance of counsel; contended the State’s prosecution of the zoning ordinance constituted an unlawful taking, violating Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; argued various state laws permitted his current property use; questioned the qualification of the code enforcement officer to testify about the condition of vehicles on the property; and alleged the code enforcement officer committed perjury in the initial criminal complaint (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant either abandoned the uses permitted by the certificate of nonconformance or exceeded the scope of the certificate with his present use, thereby violating the Zoning Ordinance. The State also contended that the evidence presented, including Officer De Costa's testimony and photographs of the property, supported the convictions under both the Zoning and Solid Waste Ordinances (paras 7, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether there is sufficient evidence to support both convictions.
• Whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the State’s prosecution of the zoning ordinance constitutes an unlawful taking, violating Defendant’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
• Whether various state laws permit the Defendant's current property use.
• Whether the code enforcement officer was qualified to testify about the condition of vehicles located on the property.
• Whether the code enforcement officer violated Defendant’s rights by committing perjury in the initial criminal complaint.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the convictions for violations of the Zoning and Solid Waste Ordinances (para 18).

Reasons

• Per VARGAS, J. (ZAMORA, J., and MEDINA, J., concurring):
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict and indulging all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. The evidence against the Defendant included Officer De Costa's testimony and numerous photographs showing the condition of the property and the items stored there (paras 2-13).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court determined that the Defendant had not developed a record sufficient to evaluate his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. It suggested that the Defendant is free to pursue habeas corpus proceedings to develop the record on this issue (para 16).
  Remaining Arguments: The court declined to address the Defendant's remaining arguments, including the claim of an unlawful taking and the qualifications of the code enforcement officer to testify, because these issues were not preserved for review on appeal (paras 17).