This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
During Thanksgiving weekend in 1993, blank checks were stolen from Danley Construction Company. Over the next two weeks, five of these checks, made payable to the Defendant, were negotiated at different locations. The checks bore the forged signature of a deceased former owner and were endorsed by the Defendant. The Defendant had never worked for the company, and the checks included false notations suggesting they were for wages (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Trial court: The Defendant was convicted of five counts of forgery. A motion for a directed verdict on the commercial burglary charge was granted, but the motion for directed verdict on the forgery charges was denied (para 3).
- Court of Appeals, No. 16,222, slip op. (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 1995): The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's forgery convictions in a memorandum opinion (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that (1) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to request a jury instruction on the single criminal intent doctrine, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his forgery convictions (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Respondent: Contended that the Defendant's actions constituted separate offenses under the forgery statute and that substantial evidence supported the convictions (paras 8-18).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to the failure to request a jury instruction on the single criminal intent doctrine?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's forgery convictions, including proof of the requisite knowledge that the checks were forged?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all five counts of forgery (para 19).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Franchini C.J. and Cole J. concurring):
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court held that the single criminal intent doctrine did not apply to the facts of this case. The forgery statute reflects legislative intent to treat each act of forgery as a separate offense. The Defendant negotiated five checks on different dates and at different locations, with no evidence of a single, continuous scheme. Therefore, the Defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on this doctrine (paras 8-14).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Defendant's convictions. The jury could reasonably infer the Defendant's knowledge that the checks were forged based on several factors, including the false "operator" notation, the Defendant's lack of employment with the company, and the negotiation of checks at multiple locations. Additionally, the jury could compare the handwriting on the checks to the Defendant's endorsement to conclude that he forged or knowingly negotiated the checks (paras 15-18).
Conclusion: The Court determined that the Defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, and the State had proven all elements of forgery beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions were affirmed (paras 19-20).