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 Defendant, Domekio Blackwell, who was convicted of aggravated burglary. The conviction was based on an incident where the Defendant allegedly entered a house, assaulted the Victim staying there, and later returned with a sledgehammer to threaten the Victim. The Victim identified the Defendant in court as the perpetrator of these acts.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Cindy Leos, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove he was the person who committed the acts of entering the house, assaulting the Victim, and threatening the Victim with a sledgehammer. The Defendant acknowledged that the Victim identified him in court but contested the sufficiency of this identification as evidence.
• Appellee: The State, represented by the Attorney General, argued in favor of affirming the conviction, relying on the Victim's testimony as sufficient evidence for the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant was the person who committed the aggravated burglary.
• Whether the trial counsel has a burden to ensure that jury instructions are part of the record proper before preparing a docketing statement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated burglary.

Reasons

• The Court, with an opinion authored by Judge Michael E. Vigil and concurrence from Judges M. Monica Zamora and Emil J. Kiehne, held that the Victim's in-court identification of the Defendant was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the Defendant committed the alleged acts (para 2). The Court referenced precedent to support its decision that the testimony of a victim alone can be sufficient to affirm a conviction (para 2). The Court also addressed the Defendant's request for a published opinion regarding the burden on trial counsel concerning jury instructions, clarifying that their notice did not intend to create a new burden but reiterated that it is the Defendant's responsibility to bring up a sufficient record for review if challenging jury instructions (para 3). The decision to affirm the conviction was based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented, particularly the Victim's testimony, and procedural considerations regarding the record on appeal (paras 2-4).