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

• Around 2:30 a.m. on September 24, 2011, a woman reported being attacked in her apartment complex's parking lot while getting laundry from her car. She stated a man grabbed her, pulled down her shorts to expose her buttocks, and squeezed them before walking away. The woman and her husband identified the defendant as the assailant six days later, following an unsuccessful photo lineup identification attempt by the woman (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge: Affirmed the conviction of Victor Gonzales for criminal sexual contact, a misdemeanor, after an on-record review of his appeal from the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in affirming the metropolitan court’s denial of defense counsel’s motion for continuance and contended he was entitled to a de novo appeal in the district court, not an on-record review (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the defendant was not entitled to a de novo appeal and supported the metropolitan court's decision to deny the motion for continuance, arguing that criminal sexual contact is considered sexual assault and thus falls under the category of domestic abuse as defined by the Family Violence Protection Act (FVPA), warranting an on-record appeal (paras 17-18, 24).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant was entitled to a de novo appeal in the district court instead of an on-record review (para 7).
• Whether the metropolitan court abused its discretion by denying the defense counsel’s motion for continuance (para 32).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded the defendant was not entitled to a de novo appeal and that the metropolitan court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for continuance. The defendant's conviction was affirmed (para 42).

Reasons

• Per Stephen G. French, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part):
  The court determined that criminal sexual contact, even between strangers, constitutes sexual assault under the FVPA, thus aligning with domestic abuse definitions and warranting an on-record appeal (paras 14-23).
  The court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for continuance, considering the factors such as the length of the requested delay, the likelihood that a delay would accomplish the movant’s objectives, the existence of previous continuances, the degree of inconvenience to the parties and the court, the legitimacy of the motives in requesting the delay, the fault of the movant in causing a need for the delay, and the prejudice to the movant in denying the motion (paras 32-41).
  Sutin, J., dissented on the review-standard ruling, suggesting that the policy considerations behind the FVPA's protections for victims of domestic abuse do not extend to non-domestic misdemeanor sexual contact cases and that such cases should allow for a de novo trial in district court (paras 44-49).