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 indicted on charges of armed robbery, aggravated burglary with a deadly weapon, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon or, alternatively, aggravated battery with great bodily harm. The incident involved the Defendant attacking a hotel night clerk, resulting in the clerk's severe injury due to a congenital birth defect. The Defendant then stole $46.81 from the hotel's cash drawer. The district court found the Defendant incompetent to stand trial but dangerous and ordered a criminal commitment hearing (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, May 6, 2011, No. 32,951.
• Released for Publication July 19, 2011.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by finding sufficient evidence of great bodily harm during the armed robbery, concluding armed robbery is a crime permitting commitment under Section 31-9-1.5(D), and denying presentence confinement credit (para 1).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence that the Defendant inflicted great bodily harm while committing armed robbery.
• Whether armed robbery is a crime delineated in Section 31-9-1.5(D) permitting commitment.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to presentence confinement credit for the period of detainment prior to the commitment.

Disposition

• The district court's order for the Defendant's commitment for twelve years was upheld.
• The case was remanded to the district court to modify the commitment period, granting credit for the time spent in detention prior to commitment (para 15).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The court found that armed robbery resulting in great bodily harm is a delineated crime under Section 31-9-1.5(D), supported by sufficient evidence of the Defendant's intent and actions during the incident (paras 5-8).
  The interpretation of Section 31-9-1.5(D) does not require the infliction of great bodily harm to be an element of the felony for commitment. The statute's plain meaning allows for the commitment of defendants who commit felonies closely connected with the infliction of great bodily harm (paras 9-13).
  The court concluded that the Defendant was entitled to presentence confinement credit towards his commitment period under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-12, contrary to the district court's decision. This aligns with the court's previous decision in State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-112, acknowledging the entitlement to such credit (paras 14).