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, a participant in the Project Forward Program under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) initiative, was accused of selling six Medicaid cards to undercover officers for $150. The cards were obtained while the Defendant was working at the Human Services Department (HSD) as part of a workfare program. The Defendant was also alleged to have a history of drug sales, which was introduced as evidence during the trial (paras 4-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Sandoval County: The Defendant was convicted of one consolidated count of misappropriation of public assistance and six counts of tampering with public records. The trial court merged the six tampering counts into one and sentenced the Defendant to a total of seven years, including a habitual offender enhancement (paras 1, 8).
Parties' Submissions
Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) he was not a public employee and thus could not be convicted of misappropriation of public assistance; (2) the Medicaid cards were not public records, making the tampering charges invalid; (3) evidence of prior drug sales was improperly admitted, constituting fundamental error; (4) the prosecutor’s references to his character and prior drug sales amounted to prosecutorial misconduct; (5) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (6) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment and Medicaid fraud as a lesser-included offense; and (7) the sentences for misappropriation and tampering should merge (para 1).
Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant was properly convicted based on sufficient evidence and that the evidence of prior drug sales was admissible to rebut the defense of entrapment. The State also argued that the Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel were unfounded (paras 1, 33).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant a public employee for the purposes of the misappropriation of public assistance charge?
- Were the Medicaid cards public records, supporting the tampering with public records conviction?
- Did the admission of evidence regarding prior drug sales constitute fundamental or plain error?
- Did the prosecutor’s comments during trial amount to prosecutorial misconduct?
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment and Medicaid fraud as a lesser-included offense?
- Should the six counts of tampering with public records merge into one count?
Disposition
- The conviction for misappropriation of public assistance was reversed (para 2).
- The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel (para 2).
- The six counts of tampering with public records were reversed and merged into one count (para 45).
- The trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on entrapment and Medicaid fraud as a lesser-included offense was upheld (paras 39-41).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Wechsler and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
Misappropriation of Public Assistance: The court held that the Defendant was not a public employee under the statutory definition because his participation in the workfare program was not voluntary, and he did not receive remuneration for his services. The benefits received were based on family need, not employment, and thus did not constitute remuneration (paras 9-17).
Tampering with Public Records: The court found sufficient evidence that the Medicaid cards were public documents, which supported the tampering conviction. However, the six counts of tampering were merged into one because the cards were taken from the same source and at the same time, constituting a single offense (paras 18-19, 43-45).
Fundamental Error and Prosecutorial Misconduct: The court rejected the claims of fundamental and plain error, finding that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the prosecutor’s comments, while improper, did not rise to the level of misconduct warranting reversal (paras 20-24).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court found a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to object to the extensive evidence and comments regarding the Defendant’s prior drug sales. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether this failure was a strategic decision or constituted ineffective assistance (paras 25-34).
Entrapment and Medicaid Fraud Instructions: The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support an entrapment defense, as the Defendant was merely given the opportunity to commit the crime. Similarly, the evidence did not support a lesser-included offense instruction for Medicaid fraud, as the cards did not qualify as treatment, goods, or services under the statute (paras 36-41).