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 September 3, 2011, around 3:40 a.m., Officer Adam Lem observed the Defendant and his friend walking and subsequently attempting to flee upon his call to stop. In the process, they trespassed Gary Watkins' property. The Defendant got entangled in a fence, leading to his arrest and initial charge of resisting and evading an officer, which was later amended to criminal trespass (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Magistrate court: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress and dismissed the case.
• District court: Denied Defendant's motion to suppress, rejected the argument for remand to magistrate court, and proceeded with a trial where Defendant was found guilty of criminal trespass (paras 3-4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued for the suppression of evidence and for the case to be remanded for trial in the magistrate court, contending insufficient evidence to prove knowledge of trespassing (paras 3, 9-11, 15).
• State: Opposed the motion to suppress, appealed the magistrate court's dismissal, and argued that the Defendant had knowledge of trespassing based on the landowner's lack of permission. Also contended that the appeal was moot due to the completion of Defendant's probation term (paras 3, 5-6, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant had sufficient knowledge to be convicted of criminal trespass under NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1(B) (1995).
• Whether the appeal is moot due to the Defendant completing his term of probation (para 5).

Disposition

• The conviction for criminal trespass was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the Defendant's conviction (para 16).

Reasons

• The Court, with an opinion authored by Judge J. Miles Hanisee and concurrence from Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy and Judge Cynthia A. Fry, held that:
  The appeal was not moot despite the Defendant completing his probation term, as significant collateral consequences from the conviction could arise, warranting appellate review (paras 6-8).
  There was insufficient evidence to prove the Defendant knew he lacked consent to enter Watkins' land, as the landowner did not communicate a denial of consent to the Defendant or the public through posting or other means. The statute's language suggests that in the absence of such notice, consent to enter is presumed (paras 9-15).