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 was convicted of multiple counts of possession of child pornography under NMSA 1978, Section 30-6A-3(A) (2007, amended 2016). The Defendant argued that, based on precedent, he should have been convicted of only one count.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Sandoval County, George P. Eichwald, District Judge, May 31, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that according to State v. Olsson, he should have been convicted of only one count of possession of child pornography.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Agreed with the Defendant's argument that the conviction should be limited to one count.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant should have been convicted of multiple counts of possession of child pornography or just one count, in light of State v. Olsson.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the Defendant should have been convicted of only one count of possession of child pornography. The court reversed and remanded for vacation of all but one of Defendant’s convictions and for further proceedings as may be appropriate.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring): The court examined the Defendant's argument and the State's concession, finding them to be correct applications of the law to the case. The court referenced State v. Olsson as precedent and agreed that the Defendant should only have been convicted of one count of possession of child pornography, leading to the reversal and remand of the case for appropriate further proceedings (para 1).