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 October 1, 2012, at a Motel 6 in Roswell, the defendant, a former employee, entered the lobby under the pretense of needing the wireless internet router reset for his wife. While the desk clerk, Mr. Fisher, left to reset the router, another man entered, climbed over the counter into the clerk's area, and stole approximately $250 from a locked cash drawer. The defendant and the thief then left the premises together. The clerk's area was separated from the lobby by a chest-high counter and a locked door, with a retractable barrier that was not activated at the time of the incident (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the entry into the clerk’s office was not "unauthorized" since the motel lobby was open to the public and contended that the clerk’s area is not a "structure" that can be burglarized under the law. Also argued insufficient evidence for conspiracy conviction, as he remained in the public lobby area while the burglary was committed by an unidentified individual (paras 11, 32-33).
• Appellee (State): Presented evidence, including video surveillance, showing the defendant creating an opportunity for the burglary by asking the clerk to reset the router and leaving with the unidentified man who committed the theft. Argued that the defendant's actions constituted unauthorized entry and that the clerk’s area is a "structure" under the burglary statute. Also argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction (paras 5, 34).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant's accomplice committed an "unauthorized entry" by entering the clerk’s office from the public motel lobby.
• Whether the clerk’s office adjacent to the motel lobby is a "structure" that can be burglarized under New Mexico law.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of conspiracy to commit burglary (paras 7, 11, 32).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction for burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary (para 35).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that:
  The entry by the defendant's accomplice into the clerk’s office constituted an "unauthorized entry" as it violated the possessory rights and privacy interests of the motel, given the area was designed to be accessible only to employees and was physically separated from the public lobby (paras 13-22).
  The clerk’s office is considered an "other structure" under the burglary statute, capable of confining people and property, and its physical characteristics created a reasonable expectation of protection from unauthorized intrusions (paras 23-29).
  There was substantial evidence to support the conviction for conspiracy to commit burglary, including the defendant's actions in creating an opportunity for the burglary and the timing of the events captured on surveillance video, which allowed a rational jury to infer an agreement and intent to commit the crime (paras 32-34).