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 apprehended by law enforcement while allegedly removing the front wheels of a vehicle. The Defendant argued that his actions did not constitute automobile burglary as he never physically entered the vehicle.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the single count of automobile burglary, agreeing with the Defendant's argument that physical entry into the vehicle was required under the statute.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's actions constituted automobile burglary under New Mexico law, relying on the precedent set in State v. Muqqddin, which held that any penetration of a vehicle’s perimeter, including actions like puncturing a gas tank, suffices to meet the statutory definition of burglary.
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the interpretation of the New Mexico burglary statute in Muqqddin was incorrect and urged the court to adopt Florida’s interpretation, which requires physical entry into a vehicle compartment. The Defendant also requested the case be held in abeyance pending the New Mexico Supreme Court’s review of Muqqddin.
Legal Issues
- Does removing the wheels of a vehicle without physically entering it constitute automobile burglary under New Mexico law?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of the automobile burglary charge.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Castillo and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court relied on its recent decision in State v. Muqqddin, which held that any penetration of a vehicle’s perimeter, including actions like puncturing a gas tank, constitutes automobile burglary under New Mexico law. The Court rejected the Defendant’s reliance on Florida’s interpretation of its burglary statute, emphasizing that New Mexico law does not require physical entry into a vehicle compartment. The Court declined to revisit or hold the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s review of Muqqddin, as it remains binding precedent until overturned.