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 the State of New Mexico appealing the dismissal of a firearm enhancement charged in connection with a count of involuntary manslaughter against Scott Wade Bachicha. The charge and the enhancement are based on the same incident involving the firing of a shotgun (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Dismissal of the firearm enhancement charged in connection with a count of involuntary manslaughter.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the dismissal of the firearm enhancement was incorrect and should be reversed.
• Defendant-Appellee (Scott Wade Bachicha): Filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed reversal of the district court's dismissal, asserting that the case is distinguishable from precedent due to the nature of the underlying offense being involuntary manslaughter (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the dismissal of the firearm enhancement, charged in connection with a count of involuntary manslaughter, was correct in light of precedent and statutory interpretation.
• Whether the imposition of a firearm enhancement violates double jeopardy principles when the use of a firearm is an element of the underlying conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the firearm enhancement (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Zachary A. Ives and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, the Court of Appeals found the district court's reliance on State v. Franklin to be misplaced in light of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Baroz. The Supreme Court in Baroz addressed the issue of double jeopardy in the context of firearm enhancements and noncapital felonies, concluding that such enhancements do not violate double jeopardy principles. The Court of Appeals applied the reasoning from Baroz, determining that the legislative intent and the specific nature of the underlying felony (involuntary manslaughter versus aggravated assault) do not affect the applicability of the firearm enhancement statute. Therefore, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant's assertion that Baroz is distinguishable and reversed the district court's order dismissing the firearm enhancement (paras 2-5).