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 entered a grocery store in Carlsbad, New Mexico, on three separate occasions on March 29, 2006. During the first two visits, she concealed bottles of alcohol and left without paying. On her third visit, she was arrested for criminal trespass based on a warning issued to her in 2002. Surveillance footage captured the thefts, and the Defendant admitted to signing the trespass warning but claimed she did not recall receiving it (paras 2-3, 9).
Procedural History
- District Court of Eddy County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary, two counts of shoplifting, and one count of criminal trespass.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the jury should have been instructed on shoplifting or larceny under $250 as lesser-included offenses of burglary; (2) the shoplifting charges violated statutory prohibitions against additional charges arising from the same transaction; (3) the convictions for burglary and criminal trespass violated double jeopardy protections; and (4) the sentence imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant’s convictions were proper and that the evidence supported the charges. The State conceded that the criminal trespass conviction should be vacated under a double jeopardy analysis but argued that the trespass charge arose from a separate transaction (paras 1, 18).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to jury instructions on shoplifting or larceny under $250 as lesser-included offenses of burglary?
- Did the shoplifting and burglary charges violate the statutory prohibition against additional charges arising from the same transaction?
- Did the convictions for burglary and criminal trespass violate the Defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy?
- Did the sentence imposed constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
Disposition
- The Defendant’s convictions for two counts of burglary and one count of criminal trespass were affirmed (para 20).
- The Defendant’s convictions for two counts of shoplifting were vacated (para 20).
- The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing (para 20).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Wechsler and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Jury Instructions on Lesser-Included Offenses: The court held that burglary does not share elements with shoplifting or larceny, and the Defendant could have committed burglary without committing the lesser offenses. Additionally, the evidence did not support a reasonable view that shoplifting or larceny was the highest degree of crime committed. Therefore, the Defendant was not entitled to the requested jury instructions (paras 5-10).
Shoplifting and Burglary Charges: The court found that the shoplifting and burglary charges arose from the same transaction, violating the statutory prohibition in Section 30-16-20(C). The burglary and shoplifting were part of a continuous act inspired by the same criminal intent. As a result, the shoplifting convictions were vacated (paras 11-17).
Double Jeopardy and Criminal Trespass: The court determined that the criminal trespass charge was based on the Defendant’s third entry into the store, which was separate in time and space from the burglary charges. Therefore, no double jeopardy violation occurred, and the criminal trespass conviction was affirmed (para 18).
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The court declined to address the Defendant’s argument regarding cruel and unusual punishment, as the case was remanded for resentencing following the vacatur of the shoplifting convictions (para 19).