AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 issued a trespass notice by Foley's department store in 1998, barring him from entering any of its locations due to prior shoplifting incidents. In 2000, the Defendant entered Foley's and shoplifted items valued between $100 and $250. He was subsequently charged with burglary and larceny (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court dismissed the burglary charge, ruling that the Defendant had inadequate notice under the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions that his entry into Foley's could result in a burglary charge (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's entry into Foley's after being barred constituted unauthorized entry with intent to commit theft, satisfying the elements of burglary. The State contended that the trespass notice revoked the Defendant's authorization to enter the store, and the burglary statute clearly applied to his conduct (paras 4-5, 7-8).
• Appellee (Defendant): Claimed that the trespass notice only warned of criminal trespass charges and did not provide adequate notice that re-entry with intent to shoplift could result in a burglary charge. The Defendant also argued that the notice limited the scope of potential charges and that the State should be estopped from prosecuting him for burglary (paras 3, 6, 12, 14).

Legal Issues

• Did the Defendant have adequate notice under the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions that his unauthorized entry into Foley's with intent to shoplift could result in a burglary charge?
• Was the burglary statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Defendant's conduct?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the burglary charge and remanded the case for reinstatement of the charge (para 19).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Wechsler and Robinson JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the burglary statute, which criminalizes unauthorized entry into a structure with intent to commit theft or a felony, clearly applied to the Defendant's conduct. The Defendant's entry into Foley's after being explicitly barred constituted unauthorized entry, and his intent to shoplift satisfied the statutory requirements for burglary (paras 5, 7-8).
• The trespass notice revoked the Defendant's permission to enter Foley's, and the language of the notice did not limit the State's ability to charge him with crimes beyond trespassing. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the notice restricted the scope of potential charges (paras 6, 12-13).
• The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law is not a defense, and the Defendant was presumed to know that unauthorized entry with intent to commit theft could result in a burglary charge (para 9).
• The Court dismissed the Defendant's equitable estoppel argument, finding no misrepresentation by the State and noting that the State did not issue the trespass notice. The Defendant's actions, including shoplifting, went beyond mere trespass, and the facts did not support estoppel (paras 14-18).