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

• On September 28, 2011, Defendant Jeremiah Irvin, along with Joshua Saavedra and an unidentified man, entered the hotel room of Brandon Bates and Bryanna Sawyer under the pretense of acquiring heroin. After a brief interaction, Irvin and Saavedra assaulted Bates, demanding money while the unidentified man threatened Sawyer with a knife. They robbed Bates and Sawyer of money, drugs, personal belongings, and fled in Bates' vehicle. The entire incident was captured on hotel surveillance, leading to Irvin's identification and subsequent arrest (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Samuel L. Winder, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the conduct constituting kidnapping was incidental to the robbery, the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, the convictions violated double jeopardy, and the district court erred in its serious violent offense determination under the EMD statute (para 1).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the restraint involved in the case was incidental to the robbery and not punishable as kidnapping.
• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
• Whether the robbery and kidnapping convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred in its serious violent offense determination under the EMD statute.

Disposition

• The kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping convictions were reversed.
• The designation of the robbery conviction as a serious violent offense was reversed and remanded for additional fact finding.
• All other convictions were affirmed (para 37).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora (Cynthia A. Fry and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judges concurring):
  The Court found that the restraint used during the robbery was incidental and not to a greater degree than necessary to complete the robbery, thus not separately punishable as kidnapping. This determination made it unnecessary to address the double jeopardy argument and other related arguments. The Court also held that the district court's findings were insufficient to support its serious violent offense determination under the EMD, requiring remand for additional fact finding. The sufficiency of the evidence for the robbery and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle convictions was upheld, based on testimonial and circumstantial evidence. The Court concluded that the failure to give a general intent instruction for the unlawful taking of a vehicle did not amount to a miscarriage of justice (paras 2-36).