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, Timothy Young, posted a $25,000 cash bond on behalf of Serina Aguilera, who subsequently failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. Following Aguilera's failure to appear, the court declared a forfeiture of the bond. The Defendant was then charged with several offenses related to aiding Aguilera in avoiding apprehension. He filed two motions to dismiss the criminal information on the grounds of double jeopardy, both of which were denied by the district court.

Procedural History

• State v. Aguilera, No. A-1-CA-34754, 2017 WL 2102670, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2017) (non-precedential): The court affirmed the forfeiture of the $25,000 cash bond posted by the Defendant.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the criminal prosecution following the forfeiture of the bond constitutes double jeopardy, violating constitutional protections against being tried or punished more than once for the same act.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's criminal prosecution following the forfeiture of a bond constitutes double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's second motion to dismiss the criminal information.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring, found that the Defendant's criminal prosecution did not violate double jeopardy protections. The court applied a three-factor analysis from Kennedy, focusing on whether the conduct leading to the bond forfeiture and the Defendant's criminal prosecution constituted one or two offenses for double jeopardy purposes. Utilizing the Blockburger test, the court determined that the forfeiture of the bond and the subsequent criminal prosecution required proof of different facts, as they were based on separate conduct by different individuals. The forfeiture was based on Aguilera's failure to appear, while the criminal charges against the Defendant arose from his alleged actions in assisting Aguilera to avoid apprehension. Therefore, the court concluded that the proceedings did not violate double jeopardy protections (paras 4-10).