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 June 9, 2013, the Alamogordo Police Department served an arrest warrant and a search warrant on the Defendant at his home as part of a shooting investigation. The search warrant authorized the search for firearms among other items but did not specifically mention a lockbox or safe. During the search, officers found a locked safe, which they did not have permission to open and for which no key was provided. The safe was taken to the police station, opened without a second warrant, and inside, a firearm was found, leading to charges against the Defendant for possession of a firearm by a felon and receiving stolen property (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Certiorari Denied, August 22, 2018, No. S-1-SC-37167: [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that there was no double jeopardy violation in convicting the Defendant for both possession of a firearm by a felon and receiving stolen property based on the same firearm. Additionally, contended that the district court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a safe, which was opened without a second search warrant (paras 1, 5-6, 17-20).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that his convictions violated double jeopardy principles since they were based on the same firearm. Also argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence found in the safe, which was forcibly opened by an officer exceeding the scope of the search warrant (paras 1, 5, 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and receiving stolen property based on the same firearm violate double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in a safe opened by police without a second search warrant (paras 5, 17).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and receiving stolen property, holding that there was no double jeopardy violation and that the district court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress (para 21).

Reasons

• Per VANZI, Chief Judge (KIEHNE and GALLEGOS, Judges concurring): The court concluded that the conduct was unitary but found that the Legislature intended to punish the offenses separately, thus not violating double jeopardy principles. It was determined that each statute required proof of a fact the other did not, thereby presuming the Legislature intended separate punishments. The court also found that the officer's actions in opening the safe did not exceed the scope of the search warrant, as it was reasonable to conclude the safe could contain items specified in the warrant. Therefore, the opening of the safe was deemed not to exceed the scope of the search warrant, and the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was upheld (paras 5-20).