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, Norman Lathan, was convicted of child abuse and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI). The case involved a motion to continue the jury trial to allow the Defendant to call a key witness, Josh Cox, which the district court denied due to improper service of the trial subpoena on Cox.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to continue the jury trial to allow him to call Josh Cox, a key witness. The Defendant also sought to amend his docketing statement to add issues related to double jeopardy and jury instruction, and raised an ineffective assistance of counsel argument due to trial counsel's failure to properly subpoena Cox.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to continue the jury trial.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both child abuse and DWI violate double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the failure to instruct the jury on general intent warrants a retrial.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to properly serve a trial subpoena on a key witness.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision and denied the motion to amend the docketing statement.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to continue the jury trial because the key witness, Josh Cox, was not properly served with a trial subpoena, which did not constitute good cause for a continuance (paras 3-4). Regarding the motion to amend the docketing statement to add a double jeopardy issue, the Court concluded that the Legislature intended multiple punishments for child abuse and DWI, thus the issue was not viable (paras 7-10). The Court declined to consider the undeveloped issue of jury instruction on general intent due to lack of development and authority in the Defendant's argument (para 11). Lastly, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not demonstrate a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to show that properly serving Cox would have changed the outcome of the proceedings, suggesting that this matter could be pursued further in habeas corpus proceedings (paras 12-14).