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 breaking and entering after a jury trial. The case involved an incident where the Defendant and Ms. Dutton, who were living together in an apartment, had a fight. Following the altercation, Ms. Dutton locked the door, which led to the Defendant's actions being classified as breaking and entering. The Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically questioning the evidence of the requisite mental state for the crime (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for breaking and entering, specifically challenging the evidence related to the requisite mental state for the crime (para 2).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for breaking and entering was supported by sufficient evidence, particularly regarding the requisite mental state for the crime (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to an instruction on mistake of fact based on the circumstances leading to the breaking and entering charge (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for breaking and entering (para 9).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Cynthia A. Fry and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, the court held that the Defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. The court noted that the Defendant and Ms. Dutton were living together, but the Defendant did not have blanket authority to enter the apartment, and Ms. Dutton had the authority to revoke his right to come and go as he pleased. The court found that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that Ms. Dutton's actions in locking the door withdrew the Defendant's authority and permission to enter the apartment. The Defendant's reiteration of his argument on insufficient evidence, without challenging the court's determinations, did not convince the court that the proposed disposition was incorrect (paras 1-2).
  Regarding the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a mistake of fact instruction, the court found that the Defendant did not make a prima facie case. The court noted that even if the Defendant was correct in asserting his entitlement to such an instruction, he failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he suffered prejudice as a result. The court also considered whether the trial counsel's decision not to request the instruction was a tactical or strategic decision and concluded that bad tactics and improvident strategy do not necessarily amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 3-8).