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 found sleeping on the couch in an apartment belonging to two women. Items belonging to the women, including a backpack, gloves, and a briefcase, were found in the Defendant's possession or nearby. Additionally, items stolen from a neighboring apartment, including a compact disc player and $400 in cash, were linked to the Defendant. The Defendant claimed the items were his and provided no documentation for the cash found in his possession (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of larceny under $100, one count of larceny over $250, and one count of residential burglary. The trial court directed a verdict on one count of residential burglary (paras 1, 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the two larceny convictions under $100 should merge under the single larceny doctrine and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for larceny over $250 (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence supported the convictions and that the thefts were distinct acts, justifying separate charges (paras 6, 10-11).
Legal Issues
- Did the two convictions for larceny under $100 merge under the single larceny doctrine?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for larceny over $250?
Disposition
- The two convictions for larceny under $100 were found to merge under the single larceny doctrine, and the case was remanded for resentencing (para 1).
- The conviction for larceny over $250 was affirmed (para 19).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Alarid C.J. and Black J. concurring):
- Single Larceny Doctrine: The court applied the single larceny doctrine, which holds that stealing property from different owners at the same time and place constitutes one larceny. The court found that the thefts of the women's items occurred in a continuous episode, with no significant time lapse, intervening events, or distinct criminal intents. Thus, the two larceny convictions under $100 merged (paras 6-13).
- Legislative Intent: The court found no clear legislative intent to allow multiple punishments for such acts, resolving ambiguity in favor of the Defendant (para 8).
- Larceny Over $250: The court held that the evidence, including the Defendant's possession of stolen items and the temporal and geographical connection to the theft, was sufficient to support the conviction for larceny over $250. The jury was entitled to infer that the money found in the Defendant's possession belonged to the victim (paras 15-18).
- Directed Verdict on Burglary: The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the directed verdict on the burglary charge undermined the larceny conviction, noting that the elements of the two offenses are distinct (para 15).
The court affirmed the larceny over $250 conviction, vacated one larceny under $100 conviction, and remanded for resentencing (para 19).