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

• On March 24, 2009, the Defendant and another individual forcibly entered a home, assaulted the occupant, and stole property (para 5).

Procedural History

• State v. Polson, No. 31,138, slip op. at 3 (N.M. Ct. App. July 12, 2011): The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant's convictions for both larceny and robbery did not violate double jeopardy, relying on State v. Bernal (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that convictions for both larceny and robbery under the circumstances constituted a violation of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy (para 6).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Conceded that convicting the Defendant for both larceny and robbery in this context was a clear violation of double jeopardy (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both larceny and robbery violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy (para 6).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico vacated the Defendant's conviction for larceny, deemed a lesser-included offense of robbery in this case, and remanded to the district court for re-sentencing (para 13).

Reasons

• Per RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice, with PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Chief Justice, EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice, CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice, and BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice concurring:
  The Court unanimously agreed that the issues raised did not necessitate a formal opinion as they were addressed by existing statutes or rules of court (paras 1-3). The Court found that the Defendant's simultaneous convictions for larceny and robbery, involving the same victim and act, violated principles of double jeopardy. This conclusion was supported by the State's concession and a reevaluation of the relevant case law, particularly the Blockburger test, which determines whether each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. The Court determined that larceny is subsumed within robbery, as robbery includes all elements of larceny with the additional requirement of force, making larceny a lesser-included offense of robbery in this context (paras 7-12).