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 aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. This conviction was appealed because the initial conviction for aggravated battery against a household member was reversed due to insufficient evidence proving the victim was a household member. The Defendant contended that the district court erred by convicting him of aggravated battery on remand, arguing that the jury was never instructed on this alternate charge, thus barring the conviction and precluding retrial on any lesser-included offenses due to double jeopardy.

Procedural History

• State v. Reed, No. 32,491, mem. op. ¶ 2 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2013) (non-precedential): The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter the third judgment and sentence because it was filed while Defendant’s case was pending in the Court of Appeals.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in convicting him of aggravated battery (deadly weapon) on remand because the jury was never instructed on the alternate charge of aggravated battery, thus precluding the conviction. Additionally, argued that double jeopardy bars retrial on any lesser-included offenses.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Court of Appeals should not reach the merits of Defendant’s appeal for three reasons: the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the fourth judgment and sentence, Defendant waived his right to this appeal, and Defendant’s appeal conflicts with public policy against piecemeal appeals.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in convicting the Defendant of aggravated battery on remand when the jury was not instructed on this charge.
• Whether double jeopardy bars retrial on any lesser-included offenses.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment and sentence convicting the Defendant of aggravated battery and remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring):
  The Court rejected the State’s jurisdictional arguments, finding that the district court had jurisdiction to enter the fourth judgment and sentence and that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the Defendant’s appeal (paras 5-10).
  The Court agreed with the Defendant that his conviction for aggravated battery on remand was improper because the jury was not instructed on this charge, citing the direct-remand rule and its limitations as established in State v. Villa (paras 11-16).
  The Court concluded that double jeopardy bars retrial on the charge of aggravated battery as it is a lesser-included offense of aggravated battery against a household member, from which the Defendant was initially acquitted due to insufficient evidence (paras 17-19).