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 an incident on March 15, 2020, at the Route 66 Casino Hotel, where the defendant, Zachariah Reynosa, was accused of robbing and assaulting the victim, Victor Reyes, in the men’s restroom. The victim testified that Reynosa, along with an unidentified man, demanded his belongings while threatening him with a knife and physically assaulting him. After the victim handed over his car keys, wallet, and cell phone, the unidentified man left, but Reynosa continued the assault. The victim managed to escape and identify Reynosa to security, who was then found with the victim's wallet in his possession (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for robbery and aggravated battery, contended that the district court erred in denying a jury instruction on larceny, and claimed that convictions for both robbery and aggravated battery violated double jeopardy protections (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the convictions for both robbery and aggravated battery constituted double jeopardy and agreed that the conviction for aggravated battery should be vacated (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for robbery and aggravated battery.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny.
• Whether the defendant's convictions for both robbery and aggravated battery violate double jeopardy protections.

Disposition

• The Court vacated the defendant's conviction for aggravated battery and remanded for resentencing, affirming the conviction for robbery (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges Jane B. Yohalem, Megan P. Duffy, and Michael D. Bustamante concurring, found sufficient evidence supporting the defendant's convictions for robbery and aggravated battery, based on the victim's testimony and other evidence presented at trial (paras 5-8). The Court rejected the defendant's argument for a jury instruction on larceny as a lesser included offense, determining that the defendant's use of force in taking the victim's wallet was integral to the robbery charge, making a larceny instruction inappropriate (paras 9-10). On the issue of double jeopardy, the Court agreed with the defendant and the State's concession that convicting the defendant of both robbery and aggravated battery for the same conduct violated double jeopardy protections. The Court applied a two-part test to conclude that the conduct was unitary and that the Legislature did not intend to punish the offenses separately (paras 11-18).