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 February 26, 2016, two Best Western hotels in Ruidoso, New Mexico, were robbed. The Defendant was charged with both robberies in a single criminal information. The charges included armed robbery and aggravated assault with intent to commit armed robbery at the Best Western Pine Springs Inn, and larceny at the Best Western Plus. The Defendant moved to sever the charges and to suppress eyewitness identification testimony, both of which were denied by the district court. The jury convicted the Defendant of all charges (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued for the severance of charges related to the two hotel robberies, suppression of eyewitness identification testimony, dismissal of one of the Pine Springs convictions on double jeopardy grounds, and correction of the presentence confinement credit calculation (paras 4-24).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the charges were properly joined, the eyewitness identification testimony was admissible, the convictions did not violate double jeopardy, and the presentence confinement credit was correctly calculated (paras 5-24).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to sever the charges related to the two hotel robberies.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress eyewitness identification testimony.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both armed robbery and aggravated assault with intent to commit armed robbery violated double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court incorrectly calculated the presentence confinement credit (paras 4-24).

Disposition

• The denial of the motion to sever and the motion to suppress were affirmed.
• The conviction for assault with intent to commit armed robbery was held to violate double jeopardy and was ordered to be vacated.
• The case was remanded for recalculation of the Defendant’s presentence confinement credit (para 25).

Reasons

• WRAY, Judge (with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge concurring): Found that the charges were properly joined under Rule 5-203(A) NMRA and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever as the evidence of the two robberies was cross-admissible for the purpose of establishing identity. The court also held that the motion to suppress eyewitness identification testimony was correctly denied under the federal standard, and the Defendant failed to preserve an argument for broader protections under the state Constitution. However, the court found that the convictions for armed robbery and aggravated assault with intent to commit armed robbery were based on unitary conduct against the same victim, violating double jeopardy principles. Finally, the court agreed with the Defendant that the presentence confinement credit was miscalculated and remanded for recalculation and resentencing (paras 5-24).