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 case involves the Defendant, Jesus Suarez, appealing his convictions related to a deadly home invasion that resulted in the murder of Robert Kinter. The incident occurred in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on February 25, 2013. Two men broke into Kinter's home, where he was found dead by his girlfriend, Peri Schindler. Evidence linked Suarez to the crime, including a cell phone registered to his sister found at the scene and a .45 caliber pistol found near Suarez when he was arrested, which matched the bullets and casings found at the crime scene. Schindler tentatively identified Suarez as one of the intruders (paras 3-9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not attempting to join this case for trial with a separate prosecution for another murder committed on the same day (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for felony murder and related offenses.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to join this case for trial with a separate prosecution for another murder on the same day (paras 13, 28).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions for felony murder and related offenses but reversed the conviction for aggravated burglary on double jeopardy grounds (paras 2, 42-43).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Charles W. Daniels, found substantial evidence supporting the Defendant's convictions, including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence linking a pistol found near the Defendant to the crime scene, and the presence of a cell phone registered to the Defendant's sister at the scene. The Court rejected the Defendant's claim of insufficient evidence and his challenge to the identification process (paras 14-27). Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Court found no prima facie case because the record did not establish that the Defendant's counsel's performance fell outside the range of reasonable representation. The Court also noted that joining the two separate murder prosecutions for a joint trial could have prejudiced the Defendant, given the distinct nature of the crimes and the evidence presented in each case (paras 28-38). However, the Court agreed that convicting and sentencing the Defendant for both felony murder and its predicate felony, aggravated burglary, violated double jeopardy protections. The Court directed the district court to vacate the aggravated burglary conviction on remand (paras 39-42).