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, Frankie L. Garduño, was involved in an incident at an Allsup’s convenience store in Española, New Mexico, where he attempted to rob Cody Tapie and Michelle Radosevich at gunpoint. During the attempted robbery, Garduño demanded money from Radosevich and Tapie, and when Radosevich refused to comply, Garduño struck her multiple times in the head with the barrel of his firearm. The physical attack continued until Garduño was subdued by Tapie and other patrons at the station (paras 5-8).

Procedural History

• State v. Garduño, No. A-1-CA-34242, 2017 WL 4604324 (Sept. 26, 2017): The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated the one-year firearm enhancement on Defendant’s conviction for attempted armed robbery, relying on State v. Branch.
• Order at 1, State v. Garduño, No. S-1-SC-36717 (Nov. 28, 2017): The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari.
• Order at 1, State v. Garduño, No. S-1-SC-36687 (Dec. 18, 2017): The Supreme Court remanded the case for consideration in light of State v. Baroz.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy, the enhancement of his sentence for attempted armed robbery violated double jeopardy, the district court abused its discretion by denying a severance for the charge of felon in possession of a firearm, the district court erred in excluding evidence of law enforcement bias, there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and although the district court merged the charges of assault with intent to commit a violent felony, it must enter an order vacating those convictions (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the conduct was not unitary under the facts and double jeopardy does not apply, the firearm enhancement does not violate double jeopardy, and the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions (paras 11, 15, 17, 29).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant's convictions for attempted armed robbery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon violate double jeopardy.
• Whether the enhancement of the defendant's sentence for attempted armed robbery by one year pursuant to Section 31-18-16(A) violates double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a severance for the charge of felon in possession of a firearm.
• Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence of law enforcement bias.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions.
• Whether the district court must enter an order vacating the convictions for Count 2 and Count 7, which were merged (paras 9-10, 16-18, 19-20, 27-28, 30-31).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed all of Defendant’s convictions, affirmed the firearm enhancement to the conviction of attempted aggravated robbery, and directed the district court to vacate Defendant’s convictions for Count 2 and Count 7 (para 33).

Reasons

• Per STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring): The court concluded that the defendant's conduct was not unitary, thus there was no double jeopardy violation. It held that the firearm enhancement does not violate double jeopardy, following the Supreme Court's disposition in State v. Baroz. The court found no actual prejudice against the defendant from failing to sever the felon in possession charge at trial. It determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of law enforcement bias. The court also directed the district court to vacate the merged convictions for Count 2 and Count 7, as they were not sentenced but inadvertently not vacated (paras 9-32).