State v. Lucero
| Decision Date | 19 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. S-1-SC-36128,S-1-SC-36128 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVEN LEE LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY
Robert E. Tangora, L.L.C.
Robert E. Tangora
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Elizabeth Ann Ashton, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
{1} In this capital appeal, Steven Lee Lucero (Defendant) appeals his convictions of felony murder and conspiracy to commit felony murder. Defendant was charged in connection with the death of Isaiah Sanchez (Victim). At trial, the State presented evidence that Defendant enlisted his ex-wife, brother, and brother's girlfriend in luring Victim to a vacant house, fatally stabbing him, and stealing his truck and his wallet. Defendant raises a number of challenges to both convictions and argues that cumulative error requires reversal of the convictions. For the reasons that follow, we reject each of his arguments and affirm both convictions.
{2} The State presented the case that Defendant—with the help of his brother, Gilbert Lucero (Gilbert), Gilbert's girlfriend, Sheri Sanchez (Sheri), and his ex-wife, Vanessa Lucero (Vanessa)—beat, stabbed, and killed Victim in the course of stealing his truck and his wallet. Defendant was acquainted with Victim through his ex-wife, Vanessa. Defendant and Vanessa had rekindled their relationship and were living together. Vanessa had recently dated Victim, but left the relationship when Victim hit,punched, and choked her.
{3} Defendant, an auto-mechanic, owned a truck similar to Victim's. Defendant's truck was not operable at the time. When Victim contacted Vanessa via Facebook, Defendant asked her to arrange to meet Victim so he could steal Victim's truck for its parts. Vanessa complied and arranged to meet Victim at a local bar under the pretense of a drug deal.
{4} Vanessa, along with Defendant, Gilbert, and Sheri, went to the bar to meet Victim. Defendant and Gilbert planned to sneak around from behind Victim's truck, pull him out, and drive away in his truck. The brothers hid in the back seat of the car as Victim drove up. Vanessa got out of their car and walked up to Victim, who was sitting in his truck. The plan failed when Defendant and Gilbert heard someone coming and got "spooked." Vanessa proceeded to buy the drugs from Victim, and the four left the scene.
{5} Defendant then asked Sheri to call Victim, see if he had plans for the evening, and invite him to "party." Sheri called Victim, put him on speaker phone, and invited him to join them at a house on Maryland Street. Once again, Defendant and Gilbert hid in the back seat of the car while Vanessa and Sheri led Victim inside the house. The brothers then entered and hid in a corner inside the house, waiting for Victim toapproach them. The brothers had guns, which belonged to Gilbert, as well as knives. When Victim approached the brothers, they jumped out and attacked. Defendant stabbed Victim, who tried to fight back. At least two shots were fired. As the attack continued, Defendant asked Sheri and Vanessa to go and watch for police.
{6} Defendant and Gilbert left the scene in Victim's truck. They met Sheri and Vanessa at the home of a friend. Realizing that he was missing part of his gun, Defendant left Victim's truck at the friend's house and the four returned to the house on Maryland Street.
{7} When they returned to the scene, Defendant realized Victim was still alive. Defendant, observing Victim lying on the floor and "[g]asping" for air, remarked, "that fucker['s] still breathing." Defendant then asked Sheri and Vanessa to leave, and they did so. Sheri and Vanessa waited down the road until Defendant called and said that he and Gilbert were ready to be picked up. When Sheri and Vanessa returned, Defendant told Vanessa that he had stabbed Victim again. Defendant took Victim's wallet, fifteen dollars, and one of his shoes. They left and dumped the shoe, weapons, and their bloodied clothes into the Pecos River.
{8} Later, Defendant moved Victim's truck from his friend's house to another location, referred to in testimony as a "mechanic shop." The owner of the shoptestified that Defendant worked on the truck for about a month. Defendant removed the engine and rims from Victim's truck and placed them in his own truck.
{9} At trial, Defendant admitted that he had acquired Victim's truck and had put its parts in his own truck. He testified that Vanessa had given him the truck and that she He also testified that the truck was not running and was already missing parts when Vanessa gave it to him. Defendant also testified that he regularly acquired old cars and "part[ed] them out" for money.
{10} The jury was instructed on the following offenses: first-degree, willful and deliberate murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994); conspiracy to commit first-degree, willful and deliberate murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-28-2(A) (1979); felony murder based on the predicate felony of armed robbery, contrary to Section 30-2-1(A)(2) and NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-2 (1973); conspiracy to commit felony murder, contrary to Section 30-28-2(A) and Section 30-2-1(A)(2); and tampering with evidence, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-5 (2003).
{11} The jury convicted Defendant of armed robbery (the predicate to felony murder), felony murder, and conspiracy to commit felony murder. The district courtvacated the armed robbery conviction to avoid double jeopardy concerns. See State v. Frazier, 2007-NMSC-032, ¶ 1, 142 N.M. 120, 164 P.3d 1 (). Defendant appeals his convictions of felony murder and conspiracy to commit felony murder, pursuant to Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA. We exercise jurisdiction to review the appeal under Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution.
{12} Before addressing the merits of Defendant's claims, we express our concern regarding the obvious inconsistencies between defense counsel's presentation of Defendant's arguments on appeal and the actual case before the district court. For instance, defense counsel erroneously contends that "[t]here was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict for conspiracy to commit first degree deliberate intent murder," yet Defendant was not convicted of this offense. We must presume defense counsel actually intended to challenge Defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit felony murder, the offense for which he was actually convicted. Given the gravity of Defendant's convictions and the importance of the issues this Court is obligated to consider, it is simply unacceptable for defense counsel to make suchobvious mistakes in the appeal. We caution defense counsel to be diligent in adhering to the record and in framing the issues for review on appeal. Such matters of import require no less.
{13} We discern from Defendant's briefs the following three bases for appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of felony murder, in that the State failed to prove an element of armed robbery, the predicate felony, and the State failed to prove that the killing occurred in the commission of the armed robbery; (2) the jury was not instructed on conspiracy to commit felony murder, and there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of conspiracy to commit felony murder; and (3) cumulative error requires reversal of the convictions. After considering the evidence presented, the pertinent laws, and the instructions given to the jury, we affirm.
{14} With respect to Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, "we resolve all disputed facts in favor of the State, indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict, and disregard all evidence . . . to the contrary." State v. Largo, 2012-NMSC-015, ¶ 30, 278 P.3d 532 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[O]ur review never serves as a substitution for the jury's fact-finding role[.]" State v. Tafoya, 2012-NMSC-030, ¶ 36, 285 P.3d 604. "It is our duty," however, "todetermine whether any rational jury could have found the essential facts to establish each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Consaul, 2014-NMSC-030, ¶ 42, 332 P.3d 850 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review issues of law de novo. State v. Cleve, 1999-NMSC-017, ¶ 7, 127 N.M. 240, 980 P.2d 23.
{15} We first examine the felony murder conviction. Felony murder is defined as a killing committed "in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony." Section 30-2-1(A)(2). In order to convict a defendant of felony murder, the State must prove the following: (1) "the defendant committed or attempted to commit a felony, which was either a first-degree felony or was committed under circumstances or in a manner dangerous to human life"; (2) "the defendant caused the death of the victim during the commission or attempted commission of the felony"; and (3) "the defendant intended to kill or knew that his or her acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm." State v. Marquez, 2016-NMSC-025, ¶ 13, 376 P.3d 815; see also State v. O'Kelly, 2004-NMCA-013, ¶¶ 24-31, 135 N.M. 40, 84 P.3d 88 (). In his appeal, Defendant challenges his felony murder conviction on...
To continue reading
Request your trial