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 multiple charges related to the armed robbery of Kay’s Oriental Store in Clovis, New Mexico, in August 2006. During the robbery, the Defendant, after a brief interaction with the store employees about candy, brandished a handgun, demanded money, and fired shots within the store. Following the robbery, the Defendant's ex-girlfriend reported his confession to the police. The Defendant was identified by the store employees in a photo lineup and at trial.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the convictions violated double jeopardy, claimed denial of the right to a fair and impartial jury, contended that the felon in possession of a firearm charge should have been severed from the other charges, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Defended the trial court's decisions on severance, prosecutorial conduct, jury fairness, and the double jeopardy claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by refusing to sever the felon in possession of a firearm charge from the other charges.
• Whether the Defendant was deprived of his right to a fair and impartial jury.
• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for assault with intent to commit armed robbery violate double jeopardy.
• Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred that warrants reversal of the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The court vacated the Defendant’s two convictions for assault with intent to commit armed robbery due to double jeopardy violations and remanded to the district court for re-sentencing.
• Affirmed all remaining convictions.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with James J. Wechsler and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, the court found:
  Severance: The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever the felon in possession of a firearm charge, as the Defendant’s probation status was relevant to rebut his alibi defense.
  Prosecutorial Misconduct: The allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, including failure to disclose Brady material and inappropriate comments during opening and closing statements, did not deprive the Defendant of a fair trial or warrant a new trial.
  Jury Issue: The Defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury was not violated despite concerns about a juror's English comprehension, as the juror affirmed understanding and agreement with the verdict.
  Double Jeopardy: The Defendant’s convictions for assault with intent to commit armed robbery were based on unitary conduct with the armed robbery and attempted armed robbery charges, violating double jeopardy protections. These convictions were vacated, and the case was remanded for re-sentencing on these counts.