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 two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor. The victim, a 17-year-old, testified that the Defendant made unwanted sexual advances, grabbed her, and touched her buttocks on two separate occasions during an evening at a neighbor’s apartment. The Defendant denied the allegations and provided a different version of events.
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and sentenced as a habitual offender. The court also limited the Defendant’s ability to earn good time under the Earned Meritorious Defense Act.
Parties' Submissions
-
Appellant (Defendant): Argued that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict due to insufficient evidence; (2) his double jeopardy rights were violated as the two convictions arose from unitary conduct; (3) the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence, an unrepresentative jury pool, and ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) the State failed to meet the timeliness requirement for habitual offender sentencing; and (5) the court erred in designating the offense as a serious violent offense without specific findings.
-
Respondent (State): Contended that (1) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; (2) the two incidents were distinct and did not violate double jeopardy; (3) the jury pool was adequate, and the Defendant failed to show prejudice or systematic exclusion; (4) the State met the timeliness requirement for habitual offender sentencing; and (5) the designation of the offense as a serious violent offense was proper.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor?
- Did the Defendant’s convictions violate his double jeopardy rights?
- Did the district court err in denying the Defendant’s motion for a new trial?
- Did the State meet the timeliness requirement for habitual offender sentencing?
- Did the district court err in designating the offense as a serious violent offense without specific findings?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s rulings on the sufficiency of evidence, double jeopardy, denial of a new trial, and habitual offender sentencing.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s designation of the offense as a serious violent offense for lack of specific findings.
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Fry CJ. and Sutin J. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court held that the victim’s testimony provided substantial evidence to support the convictions. The jury was entitled to believe the victim’s account, and the evidence was sufficient to establish two separate incidents of criminal sexual contact.
Double Jeopardy: The Court found that the two incidents were distinct in time and space, involving separate acts of touching. Thus, the convictions did not arise from unitary conduct and did not violate double jeopardy.
Motion for a New Trial: The Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court. The victim’s testimony supported the convictions, the jury pool was adequate, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.
Habitual Offender Sentencing: The Court concluded that the State met its burden of proving the timeliness of the prior convictions under the habitual offender statute. The evidence showed that the Defendant was serving a sentence or on probation within the required ten-year period.
Serious Violent Offense Designation: The Court reversed the district court’s designation of the offense as a serious violent offense, finding that the court failed to provide specific findings as required under the Earned Meritorious Defense Act. The case was remanded for further findings on this issue.