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, Ray Daniel Gallegos, who appealed from a judgment and sentence, raising a double jeopardy challenge among other issues. The specific events leading to the appeal are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge, January 30, 2017: Judgment and sentence appealed.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant did not present new facts, arguments, or authorities in his responsive memorandum but raised a double jeopardy challenge in the newly-amended issue.
• Appellee: The State did not oppose the Defendant's double jeopardy challenge.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated.

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court's decision on the double jeopardy issue and remanded with instructions to vacate one of the convictions and re-sentence the Defendant accordingly.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and James J. Wechsler, Judge concurring):
  The court initially proposed to affirm the judgment and sentence regarding the issues raised in the docketing statement but decided to reverse based on the double jeopardy challenge presented by the Defendant in a newly-amended issue. The Defendant's responsive memorandum did not introduce new facts, arguments, or authorities, and the State did not oppose the double jeopardy challenge. Consequently, the court found merit in the double jeopardy argument, leading to the reversal of the district court's decision on this ground and remanding for the vacation of one of the convictions and re-sentencing of the Defendant (paras 1-3).