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 second-degree murder, aggravated assault upon a peace officer, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and criminal trespass. The criminal trespass conviction was based on the entry or presence of a vehicle, which was contrary to the relevant statute and case law (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Rio Arriba County: The Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, aggravated assault upon a peace officer, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and criminal trespass.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued for the reversal of the criminal trespass conviction, claiming it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the statute. The Defendant also reiterated arguments against the remaining convictions (paras 1-2).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the proposed reversal of the trespass conviction and the affirmance of the remaining convictions (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's conviction for criminal trespass was legally valid.
- Whether the remaining convictions should be upheld.
Disposition
- The conviction for criminal trespass was vacated.
- The convictions for second-degree murder, aggravated assault upon a peace officer, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon were affirmed (para 3).
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Attrep C.J. and Baca J. concurring): The court found that the criminal trespass conviction was based on an incorrect interpretation of the statute, as it involved the entry or presence of a vehicle, which is not supported by the relevant statute and case law. The State did not oppose the reversal of this conviction. The Defendant failed to meet the burden of pointing out errors in fact or law regarding the remaining convictions, as required in summary calendar cases. Therefore, the court affirmed the other convictions and vacated the trespass conviction (paras 1-3).