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 case involves the Defendant, Kyle Sanchez, who responded to a Craigslist ad for a "glory hole party" posted by an Albuquerque Police Department Detective posing as "Stu Wall" in a sting operation to catch sexual predators. The Defendant expressed interest in participating upon learning that children as young as nine and eleven would be present. Through subsequent communications, the Defendant arranged to meet with "Kim," a fictitious eleven-year-old, expressing intentions to engage in sexual acts with her. On the day of the supposed meeting, after purchasing orange Fanta as a gift, the Defendant was arrested by officers at the arranged location before any meeting with "Kim" could occur (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for attempted criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), contending that because no actual child was involved, it was impossible to commit the goal crimes of CSPM. Additionally, he argued that his actions should have been charged as attempted child solicitation by electronic device, not CSPM, and that his two convictions violate double jeopardy protections (paras 8, 20, 27).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's "impossibility" argument was misplaced since he was convicted of attempted CSPM, not CSPM itself. The State argued that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's finding that the Defendant took overt acts in furtherance of committing the crimes and that the general/specific statute rule does not apply to this case (paras 8, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for attempted CSPM.
• Whether the Defendant should have been charged with attempted child solicitation by electronic communication device instead of attempted CSPM.
• Whether the Defendant's two convictions for attempted CSPM violate double jeopardy protections.

Disposition

• One of the Defendant's convictions for attempted CSPM was reversed on double jeopardy grounds, the other conviction was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the district court for resentencing (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Kristina Bogardas concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Defendant's convictions for attempted CSPM, noting that the Defendant's belief and actions towards meeting an eleven-year-old for sexual activities constituted an overt act in furtherance of the crime, regardless of the actual existence of a child (paras 8-12, 14-19).
  General/Specific Statute Rule: The Court determined that the general/specific statute rule did not apply as the Defendant communicated only with the person he believed to be the child’s step-father, not the child. Thus, his conduct could not have been charged under the statute for child solicitation by electronic communication device (paras 20-26).
  Double Jeopardy: The Court agreed with the Defendant that his two convictions for attempted CSPM, based on his unitary conduct and single intent, violated double jeopardy protections. The Court found no sufficient indicia of distinctness between the acts to justify multiple punishments under the same statute, leading to the reversal of one conviction (paras 27-35).