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 Child-Appellant's separate convictions for shooting from a motor vehicle resulting in great bodily harm and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The core issue revolves around whether these convictions violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, M. Monica Zamora, District Judge, dated May 8, 2014.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State): Argued that the convictions for shooting at or from a motor vehicle and aggravated battery do not violate double jeopardy protections, relying on the precedent set by State v. Dominguez, which was not overruled by State v. Montoya (paras 2).
• Appellant (Child): [Not applicable or not found]
• Amicus Curiae (Juvenile Law Center): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Child-Appellant's separate convictions for shooting from a motor vehicle resulting in great bodily harm and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the Child-Appellant's convictions violate his right to be free from double jeopardy and remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring):
  The Court addressed the State's argument by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Montoya, which implicitly overruled State v. Dominguez regarding the issue of double jeopardy in cases involving shooting from a motor vehicle and aggravated battery arising from unitary conduct. The Court interpreted Montoya's reasoning as applicable to the current case, thereby invalidating the precedent set by Dominguez that allowed for separate convictions without violating double jeopardy protections (para 2). Additionally, the Court rejected the State's jurisdictional challenge, citing statutory law that the defense of double jeopardy may be raised at any stage of a criminal prosecution, thus affirming its jurisdiction to review the issue despite the Child not petitioning the Supreme Court to review the double jeopardy issue (para 3).