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 five sexual offenses for performing sexual acts on the Victim while she was intoxicated and unconscious in his car. The Victim had repeatedly told the Defendant she did not want to have sex with him. The incidents occurred after the Victim and Defendant went out for drinks with coworkers, and the Victim later blacked out in the Defendant's car. The Victim later woke up naked in the back seat of the car, and DNA evidence matched the Defendant's profile (paras 1-9).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal sexual penetration and two counts of criminal sexual contact. The court vacated one conviction for criminal sexual contact on double jeopardy grounds and imposed a total sentence of sixteen-and-one-half years, with six years suspended (para 10).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his three convictions for criminal sexual penetration violate double jeopardy, that his convictions for criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact violate double jeopardy, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence at trial demonstrated temporal and physical separation of the events, supporting multiple punishments, and that the Defendant's conduct was nonunitary, thus not violating double jeopardy (paras 17, 26).
Legal Issues
- Do the Defendant's three convictions for criminal sexual penetration violate double jeopardy?
- Do the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact violate double jeopardy?
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- Two of the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual penetration were vacated on double jeopardy grounds (para 22).
- The Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact was affirmed (para 27).
- The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected (para 32).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Medina and Baca JJ. concurring):
Double Jeopardy for CSP Convictions: The court found that the evidence did not establish sufficient indicia of distinctness between the acts of penetration to justify multiple punishments. The record lacked detail about the timing, location, and sequence of the acts, leading to the conclusion that two of the CSP convictions must be vacated (paras 12-22).
Double Jeopardy for CSP and CSC Convictions: The court determined that the conduct underlying the CSP and CSC convictions was nonunitary. The acts were separated by time and space, as the CSC was completed before the CSP occurred, thus not violating double jeopardy (paras 23-27).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court concluded that the Defendant did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from counsel's alleged deficiencies. The evidence presented at trial was ample to support the convictions, and the Defendant's claims did not undermine confidence in the trial's outcome (paras 28-32).