State v. Ryals, 011717 NMCA, 35, 820

Docket Nº:35, 820
Opinion Judge:LINDA M. VANZI, Judge.
Party Name:STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN RYALS, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Maha Khoury, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee. Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
Judge Panel:WE CONCUR: MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge.
Case Date:January 17, 2017
Court:Court of Appeals of New Mexico
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SHAUN RYALS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 35, 820

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

January 17, 2017

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Christina Pete Argyres, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Maha Khoury, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee.

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LINDA M. VANZI, Judge.

{1} Defendant has appealed from numerous convictions, including second degree murder, arson, tampering with evidence (three counts) and receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle. Defendant raised a single issue, contending one of the convictions for tampering with evidence violates double jeopardy. Tending to agree, we previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to reverse one of those convictions. The State has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we adhere to our initial assessment.

{2} The two convictions at issue are premised on Defendant's acts of transporting the victim's body to a location and setting fire to it. [RP 104, 108] In the notice of proposed summary disposition we explained that we found no indication in the record before us that these acts occurred at different times, that there were any intervening events, or that Defendant's intent differed. [CN 3; RP 157, 161-62] Based on that understanding, we proposed to hold that there were insufficient indicia of distinctness to support multiple convictions. [CN 3] See, e.g., State v. Saiz, 2008-NMSC-048, ¶¶ 39, 41, 144 N.M. 663, 191 P.3d 521 (indicating that the double jeopardy analysis in unit of prosecution cases involving tampering with evidence turns upon...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP