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 Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence. The events leading to these convictions are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• District Court of Chaves County: Convicted the Defendant of involuntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Did not file a memorandum in opposition to the appellate court's proposed disposition, which suggested reversing the conviction for tampering with evidence and affirming the conviction for involuntary manslaughter (State’s Resp. 1).
• Defendant-Appellant (Joseph Vallejos): Also did not file a memorandum in opposition to the appellate court's proposed disposition regarding his convictions (Defendant’s Resp. 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence.
• Whether the conviction for involuntary manslaughter should be affirmed.

Disposition

• The conviction for tampering with evidence was reversed due to insufficient evidence.
• The conviction for involuntary manslaughter was affirmed.
• The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, Chief Judge (with JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge, and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, concurring):
  The appellate court proposed to reverse the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence due to insufficient evidence and to affirm the conviction for involuntary manslaughter. Neither the State nor the Defendant opposed this proposed disposition. Based on the reasons stated in the court's notice of proposed disposition, the appellate court reversed the conviction for tampering with evidence, affirmed the conviction for involuntary manslaughter, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion (paras 1-2).