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 criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) after the nine-year-old cousin of his girlfriend accused him of inappropriate touching. The incident occurred while the victim was staying overnight at her aunt's house, where the Defendant was also present. The victim testified that she woke up to find the Defendant's hand inside her pajamas, touching her skin in a manner she described as "rubbing" but not directly touching her "privates." The victim reported the incident to her aunt and later to her mother (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, October 27, 2016, S-1-SC-36109.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, the jury was improperly instructed, and the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial (para 1).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain the Defendant's conviction for CSCM.
• Whether the jury was improperly instructed.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for CSCM (para 16).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  Sufficient Evidence: The court found substantial evidence supporting the verdict, noting the victim's testimony that the Defendant's hand was "a little above [her] privates" could reasonably lead a jury to conclude that the Defendant touched or applied force to the victim's unclothed groin area, as defined by law (paras 6-11).
  Jury Instructions: The court rejected the Defendant's claim that the jury was improperly instructed, noting the Defendant failed to object to the jury instructions or the State’s comments during closing arguments at trial. The court found no fundamental error that would warrant overturning the conviction based on the jury instructions or closing arguments (paras 12-13).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court concluded that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel. The Defendant's claim was deemed undeveloped and unclear, and the court suggested that habeas corpus proceedings might be a more appropriate avenue for pursuing such a claim (paras 14-15).