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, Chris Servantez, was convicted for attempt to commit second-degree murder and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in personal injury. The case was revisited in light of the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in State v. Montoya, which overruled previous case law regarding double jeopardy concerns in cases of unitary conduct leading to multiple convictions.

Procedural History

• State v. Servantez, No. 30,414, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2010): Affirmed Defendant’s convictions.
• New Mexico Supreme Court granted Defendant’s petition for review and held the case in abeyance pending the disposition of related cases.
• State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, 306 P.3d 426: Overruled previous case law on double jeopardy.
• The Supreme Court quashed the writ of certiorari in this case and remanded it to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in light of Montoya.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued for reconsideration of convictions in light of the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in State v. Montoya, which addressed double jeopardy concerns related to unitary conduct leading to multiple convictions.
• Appellee: Filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition by the Court of Appeals, arguing that the one-death-one-homicide principle in Montoya does not apply to the Defendant’s case and that previous case law regarding battery and assault remains valid.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for attempt to commit second-degree murder and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in personal injury violate double jeopardy principles in light of the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in State v. Montoya.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed one of the Defendant's convictions and remanded for one of the convictions to be vacated, without specifying which conviction should be vacated.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, J. (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J., MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., concurring):
  The Court reconsidered its prior decision based on the New Mexico Supreme Court's mandate in Montoya, which overruled previous case law on double jeopardy in cases of unitary conduct leading to multiple convictions (para 1).
  The Court proposed to reverse one of the Defendant's convictions, finding that the distinction between an attempted homicide and an actual homicide did not provide a basis for distinguishing Montoya, especially in light of State v. Swick, which rejected the approach of viewing the social evil of attempt crimes differently (paras 2-3).
  The State's argument that the one-death-one-homicide principle was integral to Montoya's decision and that previous case law on battery and assault remains valid was not persuasive to the Court. The Court found these cases distinguishable and the State's arguments unclear (para 4).
  The Court concluded that for reasons stated in its notice of proposed disposition, one of the Defendant's convictions should be reversed and remanded for vacatur, without expressing an opinion as to which conviction should be vacated (para 5).