State v. Chester
| Decision Date | 28 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-34521 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT GENE CHESTER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 CHAVES COUNTY
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Marko D. Hananel, Assistant Attorney General
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Nina Lalevic, Assistant Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
{1} Defendant Robert Gene Chester appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit arson and retaliation against a witness, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Defendant also argues for the first time on appeal that the jury was not properly instructed. Additionally, Defendant argues that the district court sentenced him above the statutory maximum for conspiracy to commit arson. We conclude that substantial evidence supported both convictions and that the lack of unrequested jury instructions did not constitute fundamental error. However, we hold that Defendant was incorrectly sentenced and remand for re-sentencing.
{2} The underlying facts of this case are undisputed. Defendant was in an extramarital relationship with Kimberlee Egeler for almost ten years until she broke up with him in late 2010. Ms. Egeler—who initially bonded with Defendant over their mutual love of professional racing, drag racing, and cars—subsequently secured a restraining order against Defendant in May 2011. In October 2012, Ms. Egeler testified against Defendant in a separate matter. Based on Ms. Egeler's testimony, Defendant was convicted of aggravated stalking. As a result of the conviction, Defendant's probation was revoked in two other cases.
{3} Early in the morning on November 20, 2012, before Defendant's sentencing for the aggravated stalking charge, Ms. Egeler awoke to find that one of her cars, a 2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport (the Monte Carlo), was on fire. Ms.Egeler hosed down the hood of the car and after putting the fire out, she discovered the source of the fire was an aluminum bottle resting where the hood met the windshield. The fire marshal later identified the bottle, which he described as "some sort of Molotov Cocktail," as the likely source of the fire. Defendant was subsequently charged with conspiracy to commit arson and retaliation against a witness. The testimony at Defendant's trial was as follows.
{4} Crystal Rose Servantez testified that she started the fire at the behest of her then-boyfriend, Isaiah Chavez, an inmate incarcerated in the same detention center as Defendant. Ms. Servantez testified that Mr. Chavez promised to pay her $400 to set the car on fire. However, Ms. Servantez never received the money. Ms. Servantez testified that she did not know Defendant or Ms. Egeler, and set the car on fire only because Mr. Chavez asked her to.
{5} Celeste Chester, Defendant's wife of 41 years, also testified. She stated that prior to the incident, and while Defendant was incarcerated, she made two deposits of $200 in Mr. Chavez's detention center account at Defendant's request. Defendant told Mrs. Chester that he wanted to loan Mr. Chavez the money so he could afford medicine for his sick children. Mrs. Chester also testified that Defendant called her from the detention center to ask if she had heard about any "problems" out on the "west side of town" involving fire trucks.
{6} Ms. Egeler testified about the condition of the Monte Carlo. The Monte Carlo was in "good" condition besides some damage to the rear corner panel from a previous accident. Ms. Egeler made significant improvements to the Monte Carlo, including installing chrome wheels, NASCAR tires, and a chrome engine cover. She did not testify as to the car's purchase price or mileage. As a result of the fire, the Monte Carlo's windshield was cracked and the cowling by the windshield wipers and one wiper melted and leaked down through the wheel well, damaging the paint and hood. Ms. Egeler had insurance for the Monte Carlo and took the car in for repairs. After having the Monte Carlo repaired, Ms. Egeler received insurance documents giving a breakdown of the repairs and stating that the repairs cost $2,605.92.
{7} Defense counsel moved for directed verdict on both counts, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The district court denied Defendant's motion, holding that substantial evidence supported both the conspiracy to commit arson and retaliation against a witness charges. The defense did not present any additional evidence, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts. This appeal followed.
{8} Defendant appeals his convictions on several grounds. First, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Second,Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the court failed to properly instruct the jury on the definition of the market value of the Monte Carlo for purposes of determining Defendant's level of culpability and the elements of the underlying felony (i.e., aggravated stalking) that formed part of the basis of the witness retaliation charge. Lastly, Defendant argues that he was erroneously sentenced for conspiracy to commit arson above the statutory maximum. We address each argument in turn.
{9} "Our review of the denial of a directed verdict motion asks whether sufficient evidence was adduced to support the underlying charge." State v. Sena, 2008-NMSC-053, ¶ 10, 144 N.M. 821, 192 P.3d 1198. "The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction." State v. Largo, 2012-NMSC-015, ¶ 30, 278 P.3d 532 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). " 'Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (quoting State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829). "In reviewing whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, we resolve all disputed facts in favor of the State, indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict, and disregard all evidence andinferences to the contrary." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "We do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict." State v. Pitner, 2016-NMCA-102, ¶ 6, 385 P.3d 665 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Our role is to determine whether a rational fact-finder could determine beyond a reasonable doubt the essential facts necessary to convict the accused." State v. Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 12, 138 N.M. 1, 116 P.3d 72.
{11} Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence of an agreement because Ms. Servantez testified that she did not know Defendant, and there was no direct evidence that Defendant knew about the agreement between Mr. Chavez and Ms. Servantez. However, as the State correctly points out, "[t]he prosecutor need not prove that each defendant knew all the details, goals or other participants." Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶ 26 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Rather, the State was simply required to prove that Defendant agreed with another person by words or acts to commit a felony. See UJI 14-2810. In reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that there was substantial evidence that Defendant agreed with another to set fire to Ms. Egeler's Monte Carlo.
{12} While there was no direct evidence that Defendant agreed with Mr. Chavez or Ms. Servantez to set fire to the Monte Carlo, "[g]enerally, the agreement is a matter of inference from the facts and circumstances." Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶ 26 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Ms. Servantez testified that she did not know either Defendant or Ms. Egeler, and that she set the fire to theMonte Carlo because Mr. Chavez offered to pay her $400. At the time, Mr. Chavez was incarcerated at the same detention center as Defendant. Mrs. Chester testified that she deposited $400, the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial