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

• In the early morning hours of June 13, 2015, Defendant, accompanied by three women, arrived at Judah Mondello's property. An altercation ensued between Defendant and Wyatt Hawkins (Victim), culminating in Defendant shooting Victim in the leg. Defendant testified that he disposed of the gun and clip used in the shooting, but the weapon was never recovered (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the jury instructions on self-defense were incorrect, leading to fundamental error; the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and tampering with evidence; and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Defended the jury instructions, argued the sufficiency of evidence for both convictions, and contested the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instructions on self-defense were incorrect, constituting fundamental error.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and tampering with evidence.
• Whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• Affirmed the conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
• Reversed the conviction for tampering with evidence.
• Found no basis for reversal on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 29-30).

Reasons

• Jury Instructions: The court found no fundamental error in the jury instructions regarding self-defense, despite acknowledging an erroneous omission. The instructions did not mislead the jury to the extent that would warrant reversal (paras 5-12).
  Sufficiency of Evidence: The court held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, as the jury could reasonably reject Defendant's self-defense claim based on the evidence presented. However, the court agreed with Defendant that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for tampering with evidence, as there was no proof Defendant "hid" the gun used in the shooting (paras 13-20).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court concluded that Defendant did not present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The record on appeal was insufficient to establish whether counsel's actions were unreasonable or resulted in prejudice (paras 21-28).
  Dissenting Opinion: Chief Judge Hanisee dissented in part, arguing that the conviction for tampering with evidence should be affirmed. He contended that Defendant's act of throwing the gun away from the crime scene constituted hiding, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation and application of the term "hide" (paras 31-33).