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

• Defendant Mark Webb was charged in two separate cases for allegedly videotaping his former girlfriend's minor daughter unclothed in her bathroom. The first case (Webb I) involved charges based on videos found on a hidden camera in the victim's bathroom, dated February 2013. The second case (Webb II), which is the subject of this appeal, involved charges based on videos found on a computer to which Defendant had access, dated January 2013. The discovery of the videos led to Defendant's arrest and subsequent charges of sexual exploitation of a child and related offenses.

Procedural History

• State v. Webb, Second Judicial District Court Case No. D-202-CR-2014-02997 (Webb I): Charged with voyeurism, attempted voyeurism, tampering with evidence, and battery on a household member based on videos from February 2013.
• State v. Webb, Second Judicial District Court Case No. D-202-CR-2015-01400 (Webb II): Charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a child (manufacture) and one count of attempted sexual exploitation of a child based on videos from January 2013.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that Webb II should be dismissed due to violations of the mandatory joinder provisions of Rule 5-203(A) NMRA, claiming the State did not timely pursue the Webb II charges, forfeiting discretion to pursue them, and that the delay in seeking the Webb II charges created judicial inefficiency and prejudiced the Defendant.
• State: Sought to join the two cases, arguing that the charges in each case, though based on different videos, were of similar character, involved the same victim, and were part of a single scheme or plan.

Legal Issues

• Whether the mandatory joinder provisions of Rule 5-203(A) NMRA were violated by not joining Webb I and Webb II into a single case.
• Whether the State's delay in bringing charges in Webb II prejudiced the Defendant and warranted dismissal of the case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss Webb II, holding that the cases should have been mandatorily joined under Rule 5-203(A) as initially requested by the State, but dismissal of Webb II was not appropriate.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Judges Timothy L. Garcia and Julie J. Vargas concurring, held that Webb I and Webb II should have been mandatorily joined under Rule 5-203(A) as the charges were of the same or similar character and based on the same conduct or series of acts constituting parts of a single scheme or plan (paras 2, 11-15). The Court found that the State's failure to join the offenses in the original indictment did not automatically trigger dismissal under Rule 5-203, as the State properly sought to join the offenses post-indictment but pretrial, aligning with the guidance provided in State v. Gonzales (paras 17-18). The Court concluded that because the State attempted to join the offenses in a manner acceptable under Rule 5-203, dismissal of Webb II was not warranted, affirming the district court's decision and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion (paras 19-20).