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 and an accomplice agreed to rob individuals using a firearm. On November 23, 1990, they met two victims at a bar, traveled together to Sandia Crest, and subsequently shot and robbed the victims. The Defendant admitted to the agreement and the crimes during a plea hearing (paras 4-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated second-degree murder, two counts of armed robbery, and two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The court imposed consecutive sentences, including firearm enhancements, totaling 52 years (paras 1, 8).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the two conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy as there was only one agreement to commit the robberies. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the four firearm enhancements violated double jeopardy because only one firearm was used (paras 1, 15, 22).
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant's guilty plea barred the double jeopardy claim under United States v. Broce. The State also argued that the firearm enhancements were authorized by the legislature and did not constitute double jeopardy (paras 9-10, 22-23).
Legal Issues
- Did the two conspiracy convictions and sentences violate the Defendant's double jeopardy rights?
- Did the imposition of four separate firearm enhancements violate the Defendant's double jeopardy rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals held that the two conspiracy convictions violated the Defendant's double jeopardy rights and reversed one of the conspiracy convictions (para 2).
- The Court upheld the four firearm enhancements, finding no double jeopardy violation (para 3).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Hartz and Black JJ. concurring):
Conspiracy Convictions: The Court found that the record established only one agreement between the Defendant and his accomplice to commit the robberies. The evidence, including the Defendant's statements and the State's summary, indicated a single conspiracy, not two separate ones. The Court concluded that convicting and sentencing the Defendant for two conspiracies constituted impermissible multiple punishments under double jeopardy principles (paras 15-21).
Firearm Enhancements: The Court determined that the legislature authorized separate firearm enhancements for each offense involving a firearm. The enhancements were tied to distinct crimes (two murders and two armed robberies), and thus, imposing four enhancements did not violate double jeopardy (paras 22-23).
Remedy: The Court allowed the Defendant to vacate his plea if the State agreed. Alternatively, the State could accept a corrected sentence with one conspiracy conviction vacated (para 24).