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

• At around 2:30 a.m. on February 17, 2010, the Defendant and a companion, both intoxicated, knocked on the door of a ground-floor unit at the Casa Bandera Apartments in Las Cruces, occupied by Anthony Torrez, Jasper Walker, Chon Miranda, and LeAnn Ulibarri. After a short conversation, the Defendant kicked in the door and entered the apartment, leading to a physical altercation with the occupants. The Defendant was charged with and convicted of breaking and entering (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that (1) he was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of criminal damage to property, (2) his right to a speedy trial was violated, and (3) he was subjected to unfair pre-indictment delay (para 1).
• Appellee: The State's specific arguments are not detailed in the decision, but it opposed the Defendant's appeals and sought to uphold the conviction (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of criminal damage to property.
• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether the Defendant was subjected to unfair pre-indictment delay.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision in all respects, rejecting the Defendant's appeals on the grounds of jury instruction entitlement, speedy trial rights, and pre-indictment delay (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges James J. Wechsler and M. Monica Zamora concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Jury Instruction: The Court found that even accepting the Defendant's version of events, his actions still constituted unauthorized entry, which is the distinguishing element between breaking and entering and criminal damage to property. Thus, the Court held there was no error in refusing the instruction (paras 6-10).
  Speedy Trial: The Court determined that the delay of nearly two years in bringing the case to trial was attributable partly to the Defendant's actions and partly to negligent or administrative delays by the State. The Defendant's late assertion of his speedy trial rights and lack of showing actual prejudice meant his constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated (paras 11-24).
  Pre-indictment Delay: The Court dismissed the Defendant's claim of unfair pre-indictment delay, noting he failed to establish or even acknowledge the required elements of prejudice to his defense and intentional delay by the State for a tactical advantage (para 25).