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, Franklin Russell, was convicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The events leading to this conviction involved an incident that was assessed under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-2(A) (1963), but specific details of the incident are not provided in the decision text.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Cristina T. Jaramillo, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and acquittal of simple battery (initially stated) and later, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (as corrected in the memorandum in opposition), are inconsistent verdicts, requiring reversal of his conviction (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments made by the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the decision text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and his acquittal of simple battery, and later, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, constitute inconsistent verdicts requiring reversal of the conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Michael E. Vigil and Julie J. Vargas, Judges, concurring:
  The court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding inconsistent verdicts between his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and his acquittal of simple battery, and later, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The court noted that it does not entertain challenges to the alleged inconsistency of verdicts, citing precedent that their business is to review verdicts of conviction without concerning themselves with any alleged acquittals (para 4).
  The court found that as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, there is no need for additional review of the issue of inconsistent verdicts. The Defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, and the court noted that there was ample evidence described in the docketing statement to support the conviction (para 4).
  The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not provide any new legal or factual arguments that persuaded the court that their analysis or proposed disposition was incorrect. The court affirmed the conviction for the reasons set forth in their notice of proposed disposition and in the opinion (para 5).