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

• Defendants Nora Chee and Karl Candelaria were involved in a scheme where they stole over $200,000 from the franchisor of Chee’s business by writing unauthorized checks to themselves. Chee owned a franchise of Around the Clock Healthcare Services, providing healthcare staffing. Candelaria, Chee's boyfriend, performed administrative tasks for the business. They were not authorized to issue checks to themselves under the franchise's "quick pay program," yet did so, leading to their arrest and charges including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy to commit fraud, with Chee also facing embezzlement charges (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the defendants committed forgery by using genuine checks and a signature stamp beyond their authorization, which constituted a lie about the document itself, thus meeting the legal definition of forgery. The State also contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that procedural and evidentiary rulings by the district court were correct (paras 7-12, 17-28, 38-41, 43-57).
• Defendant-Appellant (Karl Candelaria): Challenged the sufficiency of evidence for forgery convictions, argued that his two fraud convictions violated double jeopardy, and contested the district court's rulings on procedural and evidentiary matters, including the denial of motions to dismiss on speedy trial grounds and the admission of late-disclosed evidence and a substitute witness's testimony (paras 7-12, 17-28, 29-40, 43-57).
• Defendant-Appellant (Nora Chee): Similar to Candelaria, Chee contested the sufficiency of evidence for her convictions, the procedural and evidentiary rulings of the district court, and specifically argued against the admission of late-disclosed evidence and the testimony of a substitute records custodian (paras 7-12, 17-28, 43-57).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for forgery, given that the checks and signature stamp used were genuine.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendants' motions to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing late-disclosed evidence to be used at trial without granting a continuance for further investigation.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing a substitute witness to testify as a records custodian.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting various pieces of evidence deemed unfairly prejudicial.
• Whether Defendant Candelaria’s two fraud convictions violate the prohibition on double jeopardy (paras 7-12, 17-28, 29-40, 43-57).

Disposition

• The court agreed that Defendant Candelaria’s two fraud convictions violated the prohibition on double jeopardy and remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate one of the convictions. The court affirmed the district court’s judgments and sentences in all other respects (para 59).

Reasons

• The court found substantial evidence supported the forgery convictions, interpreting unauthorized use of genuine checks and a signature stamp as constituting forgery under New Mexico law. It held the district court did not err in denying defendants' motions to dismiss on speedy trial grounds as untimely filed, nor in its evidentiary rulings regarding late-disclosed evidence, the testimony of a substitute records custodian, and other challenged evidence. The court determined that the overlapping time periods in the jury instructions for Candelaria's fraud convictions could have led to a double jeopardy violation, necessitating the vacating of one conviction. The court's analysis included statutory interpretation, examination of procedural rules, and assessment of the probative value versus potential prejudice of admitted evidence (paras 7-12, 17-28, 29-40, 43-57).