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 charged with aggravated burglary and criminal damage to property after allegedly stealing a firearm from a vehicle and being found with it in a residential neighborhood. The Defendant was deemed incompetent to stand trial and dangerous, leading to his commitment for treatment. The parties agreed there was no substantial likelihood of the Defendant becoming competent within the statutory timeframe (paras 1, 3-4, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, San Juan County: The Defendant was found incompetent and dangerous, and was committed for treatment to attain competency (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the crime of aggravated burglary (armed after entering) does not involve the use of a firearm, and the State failed to prove he committed the crime. He requested the charges be dismissed (para 1).
- Appellee: The State contended that the Defendant's actions involved the use of a firearm and that they met the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant committed the charged felony (paras 1, 10).
Legal Issues
- Whether the crime of aggravated burglary (armed after entering) involves the use of a firearm under Section 31-9-1.5(D).
- Whether the State met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant committed aggravated burglary (paras 12, 19).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to commit the Defendant to a behavioral health facility for up to nine years (para 22).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Hanisee and Medina JJ. concurring):
The Court held that whether a felony charge involves the use of a firearm is determined by the totality of the circumstances. The Court found that the Defendant's actions, including handling and displaying the firearm, constituted use under the statute. The Court also concluded that the State met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant committed the charged felony, as the evidence supported the inference that the firearm found near the Defendant was the one stolen from the vehicle (paras 13-21).