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

• In late October 2010, a building in San Juan County, owned by Jerry Dalla and used for jewelry-making, was burglarized multiple times. The space was shared with two other jewelry-makers, Roy Kinney and Raymond Rhodes, who noticed items missing. The Defendant, Shane Upchurch, was accused of involvement in these burglaries alongside his identical twin brother, Aaron Upchurch, who had previously been convicted for his role in the crimes. The critical issue at trial was whether Shane Upchurch participated in the burglaries and related offenses with his brother (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Upchurch, No. 31,671, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. July 18, 2012): Aaron Upchurch was convicted of larceny, burglary, conspiracy to commit larceny, and conspiracy to commit burglary for his involvement in the burglaries (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy principles and contended there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the Defendant's actions constituted separate and distinct acts justifying each of the convictions and argued against the Defendant's claims on the sufficiency of evidence (paras 12, 28, 36).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for larceny and receiving stolen property violate double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the Defendant's multiple conspiracy convictions violate double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for larceny, burglary, and conspiracy to commit larceny (paras 5, 14, 19).

Disposition

• Affirmed the Defendant's convictions for larceny, burglary, and conspiracy to commit larceny.
• Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the Defendant's convictions for receiving stolen property, conspiracy to commit burglary, and conspiracy to commit receiving stolen property (paras 40-41).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges James J. Wechsler, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Cynthia A. Fry, held that the Defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property violated double jeopardy principles because a thief cannot be convicted of receiving the same stolen property by retaining or keeping it. The Court also agreed with the State's concession that the Defendant's multiple conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy, as the evidence supported at most the existence of one overarching conspiratorial agreement. However, the Court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for larceny, burglary, and conspiracy to commit larceny, affirming these convictions. The Court applied principles of double jeopardy and reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (paras 5-39).