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

• Petitioner Rodrigo Dominguez and his friends went to a convenience store to confront another group. Dominguez supplied his group with guns, and upon arrival, both groups exchanged gunfire after an adversary from the opposing group appeared with a baseball bat. This resulted in the death of Ricky Solisz and the wounding of Vince Martinez by members of Dominguez's group (para 3).

Procedural History

• State v. Dominguez, No. 23,286, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. May 20, 2003) (non-precedential): The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed Dominguez’s convictions.
• State v. Dominguez (Dominguez I), 2005-NMSC-001: The Supreme Court rejected Dominguez’s double jeopardy claims and affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the crimes of shooting at or from a motor vehicle and voluntary manslaughter or aggravated battery involved elements that were absent in the other crime, thus no double jeopardy violation occurred.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that his convictions for voluntary manslaughter and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in Solisz’s death, and aggravated battery and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in Martinez’s injuries, violated the protection against double jeopardy. He sought to retroactively apply the ruling in Montoya to support his double jeopardy claims (paras 2, 10).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the petitioner can relitigate previously raised double jeopardy claims based on an intervening change in law, specifically the ruling in Montoya.
• Whether Montoya’s new procedural rule concerning double jeopardy can be applied retroactively to the petitioner’s case.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Dominguez’s writ of habeas corpus, holding that Montoya’s new procedural rule cannot be applied retroactively under Kersey v. Hatch.

Reasons

• The Court, per Justice Chávez, held that while Dominguez has the right to relitigate his double jeopardy claims due to the intervening change in law represented by Montoya, the new procedural rule announced in Montoya cannot be applied retroactively. This decision was based on the analysis set forth in Kersey v. Hatch, which adopted the federal standard of retroactivity from Teague v. Lane. The Court determined that Montoya announced a new procedural rule rather than a substantive change in law or a watershed rule of criminal procedure, thus precluding its retroactive application in habeas corpus proceedings. The Court also rejected Dominguez's arguments that Kersey should be overruled and that State v. Forbes provided a basis for retroactively applying Montoya only to his case (paras 11-35).