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 convicted for felony criminal damage to property of a household member. The incident involved the Defendant intentionally damaging two vehicles owned by Francine Montoya by driving a 2014 Kia into the back of a Honda, causing significant damage to both vehicles. The Kia, purchased for $12,000 and in good condition prior to the incident, was deemed irreparable by an insurance company, while the Honda was sold for scrap metal (paras 5-6).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Rio Arriba County, Jason Lidyard, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for criminal damage to property, specifically questioning whether the evidence proved that the amount of damage to the vehicles exceeded $1,000 (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Presented evidence at trial to prove that the damage inflicted by the Defendant on the two vehicles owned by Francine Montoya exceeded $1,000, thereby supporting the conviction for felony criminal damage to property (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the amount of damage to the vehicles exceeded $1,000, thus sustaining the Defendant's conviction for felony criminal damage to property (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property in excess of $1,000 (para 9).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the Defendant's conviction. This included testimony and photographs showing the extent of the damage to both vehicles, with the Kia being irreparable and the Honda sold for scrap. The Court applied the legal standard for sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict and resolving all conflicts in favor of the verdict. The Court also discussed the legal framework for determining the amount of damage, including the replacement cost and the diminution in value methods. Despite the Defendant's arguments to the contrary, the Court concluded that the evidence of the replacement cost of the Kia, which was between $12,000 and $15,000, was sufficient to establish the amount of damage exceeded $1,000. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the State failed to show the diminution in value or the cost of repair of either vehicle, noting that the irreparability of the Kia supported the conviction based on the replacement cost method (paras 3-9).