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 for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The case arose when the Defendant, after accompanying his friend to the hospital for a COVID-19 test, was given the keys to wait in the friend's Jeep. The friend, who was using the Jeep as a loaner car while his own vehicle was under repair, testified that he did not give the Defendant permission to drive the Jeep, only to wait in it. Despite this, the Defendant drove off in the vehicle, which led to his convictions (paras 2, 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, contending that the State failed to prove he took the vehicle without consent. Additionally, argued that his right to be free from double jeopardy was violated with the convictions for driving while intoxicated under two different theories (paras 2, 10).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): In response to the unlawful taking charge, the State maintained that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant took the vehicle without the owner's consent. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the State conceded that one of the convictions for driving while intoxicated should be vacated to avoid a double jeopardy violation (paras 8-9, 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.
• Whether the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated by entering convictions under two different theories of driving while intoxicated (paras 2, 10).

Disposition

• Affirmed the conviction for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.
• Reversed the conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated by impairment as charged in alternate Count 1 (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Henderson, Yohalem, and Baca, held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that the Defendant unlawfully took the Jeep without the owner’s consent. The Court reasoned that the delivery of keys to the Defendant did not equate to consent for taking the vehicle, drawing parallels to a similar case (Ontiveros) where mere possession of keys was deemed insufficient for establishing consent. Regarding the double jeopardy issue, the Court agreed with the State's concession that entering both convictions for driving while intoxicated violated the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy, leading to the reversal of one of the convictions (paras 3-9, 10-11).