This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
On October 21, 2005, a Blake’s Lotaburger in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was robbed by an armed individual who stole purses from three employees. On November 2, 2005, the Defendant was arrested for unrelated charges, and a search revealed credit cards belonging to the robbery victims. The Defendant later pled no contest to dealing in credit cards of another but was subsequently indicted for three counts of armed robbery related to the same incident (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 31, 2007: The Defendant pled no contest to dealing in credit cards of another and was sentenced (para 4).
- District Court, (N/A): The Defendant’s motion to dismiss three counts of armed robbery on double jeopardy grounds was denied (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the armed robbery charges violated double jeopardy protections under the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions, as they arose from the same event for which he had already been convicted of dealing in credit cards of another. He claimed the two prosecutions constituted multiple punishments for the same offense (paras 5, 8, 10).
- Appellee (State): Contended that the offenses of armed robbery and dealing in credit cards of another were distinct under the Blockburger same-elements test, as each required proof of elements the other did not. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to provide sufficient records to support his double jeopardy claim (paras 7, 9).
Legal Issues
- Did the prosecution of the Defendant for armed robbery violate double jeopardy protections under the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions?
- Are the offenses of armed robbery and dealing in credit cards of another the "same offense" under the Blockburger same-elements test?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the armed robbery charges (para 38).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Fry C.J. and Garcia J. concurring):
The Court applied the Blockburger same-elements test to determine whether the offenses of armed robbery and dealing in credit cards of another constituted the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes. It concluded that the two offenses were distinct because each required proof of elements the other did not. Armed robbery required proof of taking property by force or violence while armed with a deadly weapon, whereas dealing in credit cards of another required proof of unlawful possession of four or more credit cards belonging to others (paras 22-23, 30-31).
The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the offenses arose from the same event, emphasizing that the Blockburger test focuses on statutory elements rather than the conduct or evidence. It also noted that the crimes occurred on different dates and involved different property (paras 24-26, 33).
The Court further held that the Defendant’s plea to dealing in credit cards of another did not preclude the armed robbery charges, as the plea did not establish that the Defendant had stolen the credit cards during the robbery. The Legislature’s intent to separately punish theft of credit cards and generic property, such as purses, further supported the conclusion that the offenses were distinct (paras 27-29, 34-35).
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding no double jeopardy violation (para 38).