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 charged with multiple counts of forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery after four stolen checks were passed at various bank branches. The checks were stolen, filled out by a third party, and cashed by an accomplice, with the Defendant allegedly orchestrating the scheme and sharing in the proceeds (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of six forgery counts and eight conspiracy counts. The judgment contained errors regarding which checks the Defendant was found guilty of forging (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the multiple convictions violated double jeopardy principles. Additionally, the Defendant contended that there was only one conspiracy, not multiple, and that the state’s charging of multiple counts prejudiced the trial (paras 1, 7, 10, 20).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the Defendant should not have been convicted of multiple forgery and conspiracy counts for the same checks under different theories but argued that the evidence supported the remaining convictions (paras 7, 9).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for forgery and conspiracy?
- Did the multiple forgery and conspiracy convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy?
- Was there evidence of multiple conspiracies or only one continuous conspiracy?
Disposition
- Three forgery convictions and one conspiracy conviction were affirmed.
- Three forgery convictions and four conspiracy convictions were vacated.
- The case was remanded to the trial court to enter an amended judgment and sentence (para 23).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Black J. concurring):
Double Jeopardy: The court agreed with the Defendant and the state that the legislature intended only one conviction for each forgery and conspiracy related to the same check. As a result, three forgery convictions and four conspiracy convictions were vacated (paras 7-9).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The court found sufficient evidence to support the forgery convictions for the first, second, and fourth checks. The Defendant’s role in stealing the checks, arranging for them to be filled out, and sharing in the proceeds established the necessary intent and participation under an aiding and abetting theory (paras 13-18).
Conspiracy Convictions: The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of four separate conspiracies. Instead, the evidence pointed to a single continuous agreement involving all four checks. Consequently, only one conspiracy conviction was upheld (paras 19-21).
Special Concurrence by Hartz J.:
- Hartz J. agreed with the result but differed in reasoning regarding the conspiracy convictions. He argued that even if there were separate agreements for each check, they constituted a "continuous conspiratorial relationship" under the Model Penal Code and New Mexico law. Therefore, only one conspiracy conviction could stand (paras 24-32).