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 August 28 and 29, 2012, the Defendant, his girlfriend, and the Victim, along with other friends, spent several hours at a bowling alley in Albuquerque, consuming alcohol. Later, at the girlfriend's apartment, the consumption of alcohol continued, and the Defendant also used marijuana and cocaine. After the friends left, the Defendant, his girlfriend, and the Victim went to sleep in separate areas. The Victim awoke to the Defendant engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her, followed by anal intercourse and fellatio. The Victim did not consent to any of these acts (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that double jeopardy protections prohibit three of his four criminal sexual penetration (CSP) convictions and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for CSP regarding the charge of anal intercourse. Additionally, he claimed to have received ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's substantive arguments lack merit and that the ineffective assistance claim should be addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether double jeopardy protections prohibit three of the four CSP convictions against the Defendant.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for CSP with respect to the charge of anal intercourse.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge James J. Wechsler, with Judges M. Monica Zamora and Stephen G. French concurring, held that the Defendant's arguments on double jeopardy and sufficiency of evidence were without merit. The Court applied the Herron factors to determine that the Defendant's actions constituted distinct offenses under Section 30-9-11, thus no double jeopardy violation occurred. The Court also found that circumstantial evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the Defendant intended to engage in anal intercourse, satisfying the intent requirement for CSP. Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Court concluded that the Defendant failed to demonstrate how his defense was prejudiced by his counsel's decisions, suggesting that this issue could be pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding (paras 8-21).