This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two masked gunmen broke into a residence intending to rob the homeowner, who was believed to have $10,000 in cash. During the break-in, the homeowner was fatally shot, and the gunmen threatened and assaulted the homeowner's girlfriend while demanding money. She managed to escape, and the gunmen fled without obtaining any money. The Defendant was later implicated in the crime based on the testimony of a co-conspirator who sought leniency in an unrelated case (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Valencia County: The Defendant was convicted of felony murder, attempted armed robbery, and other charges. The court dismissed the attempted armed robbery conviction related to the homeowner, as it was the predicate felony for the felony murder conviction, and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment plus 29 years (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the conviction for the attempted armed robbery of the girlfriend violated double jeopardy principles, as it was part of a single continuous act of attempted robbery. Additionally, the Defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds, including failure to file pre-trial motions, object to hearsay, and adequately investigate or cross-examine witnesses (paras 6-8, 34).
- State-Appellee: Contended that the attempted armed robbery of the girlfriend was distinct from the felony murder and the attempted robbery of the homeowner, as it involved separate acts of force and threats. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 9-11, 35-36).
Legal Issues
- Did the conviction for the attempted armed robbery of the girlfriend violate the Double Jeopardy Clause?
- Was the Defendant denied effective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions, holding that there was no double jeopardy violation and that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 37-38).
Reasons
Per Bosson CJ (Minzner, Serna, Maes, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Double Jeopardy: The Court applied a two-part test to determine whether the conduct underlying the felony murder and the attempted armed robbery of the girlfriend was unitary. It found that the murder of the homeowner was complete before the gunmen turned their attention to the girlfriend, making the acts distinct. The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that the single-larceny doctrine applied, reasoning that robbery is a crime of violence, and the use of force against multiple victims can give rise to multiple convictions (paras 9-31).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court held that the Defendant failed to present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. While some of the alleged errors, such as the stipulation to testimony and failure to sever charges, might warrant further inquiry, they were not sufficient to establish prejudice on direct appeal. The Court noted that the Defendant could pursue these claims in habeas corpus proceedings if additional evidence became available (paras 32-36).