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 of multiple charges related to a home invasion, including aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, possession of stolen property, tampering with evidence, attempting to receive stolen property, and attempting to dispose of stolen property. The charges stemmed from an incident involving a burglary, injury to the homeowner, and stolen jewelry.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Roosevelt County, Stephen K. Quinn, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's convictions were supported by substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony and physical evidence linking the Defendant to the crimes.
• Defendant-Appellant (Preston Blake): Contended that the district court erred in allowing him to represent himself, improperly denied his motion for a continuance, violated his speedy trial rights, provided ineffective counsel, and that his convictions were not supported by substantial evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the Defendant to represent himself.
• Whether the Defendant's motion for a continuance was improperly denied.
• Whether the Defendant's speedy trial rights were violated.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective counsel.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions were supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the Defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that the district court did not err in allowing him to proceed pro se. The court also held that the Defendant's motion for a continuance was properly denied, as he failed to demonstrate how the denial prejudiced his defense. The court concluded that the Defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, as the delay was not presumptively prejudicial. The court determined that the Defendant's counsel was not ineffective, particularly during voir dire, and that substantial evidence supported the Defendant's convictions. The evidence included eyewitness testimony and physical evidence linking the Defendant to the crimes.