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 was convicted of armed robbery for taking money from a victim with the intent to permanently deprive her of it while being armed with a firearm, an instrument that could cause death or great bodily harm.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Cristina T. Jaramillo, District Judge.
• The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its disposition in State v. Baroz, 2017-NMSC-030, 404 P.3d 769 (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that adding the firearm enhancement to the armed robbery conviction constituted multiple punishments for the same offense, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment (para 3).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether adding the firearm enhancement to the armed robbery conviction violates the Defendant's right to be free from multiple punishments under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals rejected the Defendant's argument and affirmed the conviction and sentence, including the firearm enhancement (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Stephen G. French, Judge, concurring): The Court, following the Supreme Court's analysis in State v. Baroz, concluded that the imposition of the firearm enhancement does not violate double jeopardy, even where the use of a firearm is an element of the underlying conviction. This reasoning was applied to the Defendant's sentence for armed robbery, leading to the affirmation of the conviction and sentence (paras 2-4).