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 two separate charges: one for touching S.B.'s breasts (CSCM) and another for the subsequent insertion of a finger into S.B.'s vulva or vagina (CSPM). The Defendant appealed these convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing that the convictions violated double jeopardy principles. Additionally, the Defendant raised issues related to the withdrawal of his attorney prior to trial, suggesting it was procured by the prosecution and violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice (paras 3, 6-8).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge, January 15, 2019: The Defendant was convicted of CSPM and CSCM.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the convictions violate double jeopardy principles and contended that the withdrawal of his attorney prior to trial, allegedly procured by the prosecution, violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice (paras 2, 6-8).
• Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's conduct constituted non-unitary acts justifying separate convictions for CSCM and CSPM, and that the withdrawal of the Defendant's attorney did not violate the Sixth Amendment (paras 3-4, 7-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for CSCM and CSPM violate double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the withdrawal of the Defendant's attorney prior to trial, allegedly procured by the prosecution, violated the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied, and the Defendant's convictions were affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant's conduct, involving distinct acts of touching S.B.'s breasts and the subsequent insertion of a finger into S.B.'s vulva or vagina, constituted non-unitary acts. As such, these acts did not violate double jeopardy principles because they were distinct in quality and completed at different times. The Court also noted that the legislative intent was to protect victims from intrusions to each enumerated part, supporting separate convictions for touching different protected areas (paras 3-4).
  Regarding the Defendant's Sixth Amendment claim, the Court concluded that the Defendant's own failure to appear at his scheduled jury trial prompted his attorney's withdrawal. The Court found no sufficient causal link between the State's actions and the withdrawal of the Defendant's attorney to establish a Sixth Amendment violation. Additionally, the Court determined that the prosecutor's behavior did not have a demonstrable impact on the attorney's ability to represent the Defendant or on the outcome of the case. Therefore, the Court denied the motion to amend on the grounds that the issue was not viable and affirmed the convictions (paras 6-9).