State v. Castillo
149 N.M. 536
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Sando's purse and debit cards were stolen in a burglary; one card bore Sando's name and was linked to her checking account.
- Defendant used the debit card with Sando's name to purchase at Allsup's and Lowe's, and he attempted but failed at Walgreens with the same card.
- A Walgreens manager alerted police; officers later found receipts linking the debit card to purchases and the suspect's girlfriend's car nearby.
- Defendant admitted using a card at two Allsup's stores and Walgreens after Miranda rights were read, and video of the transactions was admitted at trial.
- Jury convicted Defendant of one theft of identity and four counts under the Remote Financial Services Unit Act (RFSUA); his sentence totaled six years, later partially suspended.
- The Amended Judgment and Sentence allegedly contained two errors, prompting a remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with the court's decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a debit card is a credit card under 30-16-33 | Castillo argues that the debit card qualifies as a credit card, so charges could have been under §30-16-33(B). | Castillo contends the debit card is a credit card, so multiple charges under the fraudulent use statute were improper. | Debit card not a credit card; RFSUA applies. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for use of the debit card at Walgreens | State asserts evidence shows use of Sando's card at Walgreens with his consent implied by conduct. | Castillo argues the proof does not establish use at Walgreens. | Sufficient evidence supports use at Walgreens. |
| Due process vagueness of prosecutorial charging discretion | State argues no void-for-vagueness issue given statutory interpretation. | Defendant argues the charging discretion renders the statute vague. | Not void for vagueness; interpretation clear. |
| Equal protection preservation | State argues Defendant failed to preserve equal-protection claim. | Castillo asserts equal protection concerns from charging under RFSUA vs §30-16-33. | Claim not preserved for review. |
| Remedy for amended judgment and sentence errors | State concedes errors in the Amended Judgment and Sentence; remand appropriate to correct. | Castillo's position relies on proper sentencing alignment with RFSUA. | Remand for entry of amended judgment and sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Romero, 2006-NMSC-039 (N.M. Supreme Court 2006) (statutory interpretation to determine legislative intent)
- State v. Martinez, 2001-NMCA-099 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (Ebt card not a credit card under §30-16-33)
- Washington v. Standifer, 750 P.2d 258 (Wash. 1988) (ATM card not a credit card; undertakings/guarantees discussed)
- State v. Lucero, 2007-NMSC-041 (N.M. Supreme Court 2007) (read statutes harmoniously; interpret broadly but consistently)
- State v. Ware, 118 N.M. 703 (Ct. App. 1994) (court will not decide issues based on evidence not raised below)
- State v. Verdugo, 2007-NMCA-095 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishes completed use from attempted offenses; uses RFSUA language)
- State v. Clements, 2009-NMCA-085 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (lenity not extended to clearly stated statutes)