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 found guilty by a jury of one count of felony shoplifting and one count of misdemeanor shoplifting. The incidents occurred on two separate days, and the Defendant's conviction was based, in part, on security surveillance video footage (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge, February 20, 2019: The Defendant was convicted of one count of felony shoplifting and one count of misdemeanor shoplifting.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to disclose unedited security surveillance video footage from all camera positions on the two days the shoplifting incidents took place, claiming a violation of Brady v. Maryland. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that he should have been allowed to represent himself, stating dissatisfaction with his counsel (paras 2, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): The State's specific counterarguments are not detailed in the decision, but it can be inferred that the State opposed the Defendant's claims based on the court's analysis and conclusions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State failed to disclose unedited security surveillance video footage from all camera positions on the two days the shoplifting incidents took place, constituting a Brady violation (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant was improperly denied the right to represent himself at trial (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court judgment and sentence, rejecting the Defendant's claims regarding a Brady violation and the right to self-representation (para 7).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge, KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurring):
  The court concluded that the Defendant did not meet the burden of establishing a Brady violation because he failed to provide specific facts showing that the prosecution suppressed evidence that was favorable and material to the defense. The Defendant's docketing statement did not contain sufficient details to presume error on the part of the district court (paras 2-3). Regarding the Defendant's claim of the right to self-representation, the court found that the Defendant did not preserve this issue for appeal by failing to provide sufficient facts for review and did not establish that he raised the issue in a timely manner with the district court. The court, therefore, presumed the correctness of the district court's ruling (paras 4-5). The Defendant's failure to provide new arguments or sufficient facts on the remaining issues led the court to affirm the district court's judgment and sentence (paras 6-7).