State v. Alonzo, A-1-CA-35044

Background

Defendant (Lorenzo Alonzo) was arrested after two police calls: reports of a bloodied male from a possible vehicle altercation and a separate "unwanted male" at a residence; officers located Defendant with noticeable facial blood and agitated behavior.
Officers in uniform commanded Defendant to stop; he ignored commands, used obscene gestures and profanity, and walked away.
Lieutenant Barnett later ordered Defendant to stop; when Defendant continued to refuse, Barnett used an arm‑bar to take him to the ground. Officers Castillo and Rodriguez assisted; Defendant struggled, kicked Barnett and Castillo, and was subdued.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and two counts of battery on a peace officer.
On appeal Defendant raised (1) insufficient evidence, (2) entitlement to a simple battery instruction, (3) double jeopardy between resisting and battery convictions, (4) erroneous admission/questioning about prior/subsequent bad acts, and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Were officers acting in the "lawful discharge" of duties?	Officers responded to reports of a possible fight/injury and conducted a welfare check; objective facts (blood, witnesses) supported investigation.	Officers lacked reason to forcibly detain Defendant; no real concern for his safety or belief he committed a crime.	Held: Yes. Officers acted lawfully under an objective test (community‑caretaker/investigatory grounds).
2. Sufficiency of evidence for resisting charge	Defendant refused multiple lawful commands and used obscene gestures; resisting occurred before and separate from the physical struggle.	Conduct did not justify conviction because officers lacked authority or reasonable suspicion.	Held: Sufficient evidence supported resisting conviction.
3. Sufficiency of evidence for two batteries on peace officers	Defendant deliberately kicked two officers while they were lawfully performing duties; kicks were intentional and targeted.	Kicks did not constitute a "meaningful challenge to authority" required for enhanced battery on an officer.	Held: Sufficient evidence; kicks were a meaningful challenge to officers’ authority.
4. Lesser‑included simple battery instruction	State: officers were lawfully performing duties, so charge properly elevated to battery on an officer.	Defendant: jury should have been instructed on simple battery as a lesser included offense.	Held: No simple battery instruction was warranted because the lawful‑duty element was established.
5. Double jeopardy between resisting and battery convictions	State: offenses were separable in time, space, and nature (refusal to stop vs. later kicking during struggle).	Defendant: resisting and kicking were unitary conduct and convictions violate double jeopardy.	Held: No double jeopardy; acts were separated by time/space and distinct.
6. Admission/questioning about prior/subsequent bad acts and trial counsel performance	State: remarks about prior acts were volunteered by Defendant; counsel’s tactical choices are within wide range of reasoned strategy.	Defendant: court erred by allowing questions about bad acts; counsel was ineffective for not objecting and for failing to call a polygraph expert.	Held: Appellate argument undeveloped; volunteered testimony cannot be complained of; no prima facie ineffective‑assistance shown.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ryon, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2005) (discusses community‑caretaker exception and officers’ investigatory authority)
State v. Phillips, 145 N.M. 615, 203 P.3d 146 (Ct. App. 2009) (addresses "lawful discharge" language and limits on forcible seizure authority)
State v. Padilla, 123 N.M. 216, 937 P.2d 492 (N.M. 1997) (defines battery on a peace officer and the "meaningful challenge to authority" standard)
State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (N.M. 2015) (sets the sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard for criminal convictions)