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 case involves the Defendant, Crystal Ortiz, who, while intoxicated, drove her vehicle into her ex-boyfriend, causing him severe leg injury. After the incident, she fled the scene. The Defendant claimed she was unaware that she had struck the Victim and suggested the collision was accidental. The charges against her arose from this incident.

Procedural History

• State v. Ortiz (Ortiz I), 2018-NMCA-018, ¶ 1, 412 P.3d 1132, rev’d, State v. Ortiz (Ortiz II), 2020-NMSC-008, ¶ 27, 468 P.3d 833: The New Mexico Supreme Court remanded the case to address double jeopardy arguments not resolved in the original opinion.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated DWI, and GBHV (DWI) violated double jeopardy principles.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that there was no double jeopardy violation because the conduct supporting the convictions was not unitary and that the Legislature intended to punish the crimes separately.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for aggravated DWI and aggravated battery, in addition to GBHV (DWI), violate double jeopardy principles.

Disposition

• The conviction for aggravated DWI was vacated due to double jeopardy violations.
• The conviction for aggravated battery was affirmed, finding no double jeopardy violation.

Reasons

• The court conducted a de novo review of double jeopardy claims, applying a two-part test to determine if the conduct underlying the offenses was unitary and if the Legislature intended to create separately punishable offenses.
  For Aggravated DWI and GBHV (DWI): The court found the conduct to be unitary and that the Legislature did not intend to punish the two crimes separately, leading to the vacating of the aggravated DWI conviction due to double jeopardy (paras 6-19).
  For Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon) and GBHV (DWI): Although the conduct underlying the two convictions was deemed unitary, the court concluded that the Legislature intended to punish the two crimes separately. The distinct intent required for aggravated battery (specific intent to injure) versus the general criminal intent for GBHV (DWI) supported this conclusion, affirming the conviction for aggravated battery (paras 20-29).