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

• In the early hours, gunshots were reported at an apartment complex in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Officer Rivera, while responding, noticed a vehicle speeding away from the complex and coordinated with Officers Martinez and Rubio to stop it for investigation. The vehicle, driven by the Defendant, abruptly stopped in front of a residence without any police signal to do so. The Defendant and his passenger, Joel Calderon, were detained, leading to the discovery of firearms linked to the shooting incident.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the traffic stop was pretextual, challenged the jury instruction for tampering with evidence as fundamentally erroneous, claimed the jury instruction constructively amended the indictment, contended insufficient evidence supported his convictions, and argued the disparity in sentencing between him and his co-defendant was unjust.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended the pretextual stop issue was not preserved for appeal, argued the jury instructions were proper and supported by evidence, and maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the traffic stop leading to the Defendant's arrest and convictions was pretextual.
• Whether the jury instruction for tampering with evidence was fundamentally erroneous.
• Whether the jury instruction for tampering with evidence constructively amended the indictment.
• Whether sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's convictions for tampering with evidence and shooting from a motor vehicle.
• Whether the disparity in sentencing between the Defendant and his co-defendant constituted an abuse of discretion.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that the Defendant's arguments were unpersuasive. The Court found the pretextual stop issue was not preserved for appeal, as the Defendant failed to raise it at the district court level. The Court also rejected the Defendant's challenge to the jury instruction for tampering with evidence, finding no error in allowing the jury to convict under either of two theories without requiring unanimity on one. The Court determined that the jury instruction did not constructively amend the indictment and that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's convictions for tampering with evidence and shooting from a motor vehicle. Lastly, the Court declined to consider the Defendant's argument regarding sentencing disparity, noting that the Defendant could pursue this issue through a Rule 5-801 motion in the district court post-appeal.