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, Joel Maldonado, was convicted by a jury of criminal sexual penetration in the second degree of a child between thirteen and eighteen, by force or coercion. The conviction was based on the contravention of NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-11(E)(1) (2009).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by sentencing without a presentence report, abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination of the victim, and erred in refusing to strike Juror Five based on undue hardship (paras 2, 8, 12).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue of the presentence report for appeal, had the opportunity to present mitigating factors during sentencing, and did not demonstrate that the district court's limitations on cross-examination or jury selection constituted an abuse of discretion (paras 2, 8, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in sentencing the Defendant without consideration of a court-ordered presentence report.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting the cross-examination of the victim.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to strike Juror Five based on undue hardship.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction on all counts.

Reasons

• HENDERSON, Judge; concurred by JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge and ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge:

  Regarding the presentence report, the court found no error in proceeding without it, noting that the Defendant did not preserve this issue for appeal by failing to object during sentencing and that, in general, a defendant does not have a right to a presentence report. The court also noted that the Defendant had the opportunity to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing hearing (paras 2-5).

  On the issue of limiting cross-examination, the court determined that the Defendant's briefing was insufficient to review the claim. It was noted that the Defendant failed to properly cite the record and did not demonstrate how the district court's interruptions during cross-examination violated his rights. The court concluded that the Defendant did not meet his burden of showing that the district court's rulings were clearly against logic (paras 8-11).

  Regarding the refusal to strike Juror Five, the court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate that Juror Five's financial hardship caused bias or prejudice. The court highlighted that the Defendant did not question Juror Five about his ability to remain impartial and failed to use a peremptory challenge against him. Thus, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not striking Juror Five (paras 12-15).