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 charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after shooting a man in the chest at a gas station in Portales, New Mexico. The Defendant had a prior conviction for aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, which the State used to assert his habitual offender status. A jury convicted the Defendant of both the firearm possession and aggravated battery charges (para 2).
Procedural History
- State v. Ornelas, A-1-CA-40021: The Court of Appeals found a partial double jeopardy violation regarding the Defendant's sentence enhancement and remanded the case for resentencing (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the statute prohibiting nonviolent felons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The Defendant claimed his prior conviction was nonviolent and that the issue could be raised for the first time on appeal as a jurisdictional question (paras 3-4).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's prior conviction for aggravated fleeing was sufficient to classify him as a felon prohibited from possessing firearms, and that the Defendant failed to preserve the constitutional issue for appeal (paras 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Is the statute prohibiting nonviolent felons from possessing firearms unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to the Defendant?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, rejecting the Defendant's constitutional challenge (para 8).
Reasons
Per Bogardus J. (Hanisee and Wray JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Defendant failed to preserve the constitutional issue for appeal, as he did not raise it in the district court, leaving no record to support his claim that he is a nonviolent felon. The Court emphasized the importance of preservation to allow the trial court to address potential errors and to create a record for appellate review. The Court also noted that constitutional questions should be avoided unless necessary and that the Defendant's argument lacked factual support in the record (paras 3-7).