256 P.3d 977
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lopez was indicted on armed robbery, aggravated burglary with a deadly weapon, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon or great bodily harm.
- Before trial, the district court ordered a commitment hearing under Section 31-9-1.5(D) after finding Lopez incompetent and dangerous.
- 31-9-1.5(D) allows up to the maximum of the underlying sentence to confine a dangerous, incompetent defendant in a secured facility, upon clear and convincing evidence of a delineated crime and danger.
- Stipulated facts: Lopez battered a hotel night clerk, used a plastic tube, caused great bodily harm, then took hotel office keys and cash, with escalating conduct and immediate aftermath statements.
- District court found Lopez committed armed robbery resulting in great bodily harm and both counts of aggravated battery; ordered 12-year commitment and denied precommitment confinement credit.
- Court later addressed presentence confinement credit, remanding to grant credit consistent with State v. Lopez (2009 NMCA-112).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports great-bodily-harm during armed robbery | State—sufficient circumstantial evidence shows great bodily harm during robbery | Lopez—insufficient evidence to prove intent to rob at time of harm | Yes; sufficient evidence supports great bodily harm during robbery and intent to rob. |
| Whether armed robbery is a delineated crime under 31-9-1.5(D) | State—statute encompasses felonies involving great bodily harm, not limited to those with that element | Lopez—requires great bodily harm as an element of the underlying felony | Yes; Section 31-9-1.5(D) includes felonies closely connected with great bodily harm even if harm isn’t an element. |
| Whether Lopez is entitled to presentence confinement credit | State—no credit because no criminal sentence | Lopez—credit should be provided under 31-20-12 | Remanded to modify commitment to grant precommitment confinement credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 2000-NMCA-072, 129 N.M. 376, 8 P.3d 863 (2000-NMCA-072) (test for sufficiency parallels criminal conviction standard)
- State v. Adonis, 2008-NMSC-059, 145 N.M. 102, 194 P.3d 717 (2008-NMSC-059) (guides standard for substantial evidence review)
- State v. Juan, 2010-NMSC-041, 148 N.M. 747, 242 P.3d 314 (2010-NMSC-041) (factfinder's credibility and reweighing limits on appellate review)
- State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-055, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (1988-NMSC-055) (exemplifies standard of review for fact finding)
- State v. Davis, 2003-NMSC-022, 134 N.M. 172, 74 P.3d 1064 (2003-NMSC-022) (statutory interpretation approach in review of plain meaning)
- State v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-012, 146 N.M. 14, 206 P.3d 125 (2009-NMSC-012) (NMMIC confinement purpose and scope)
- State v. Rotherham, 1996-NM-052, 122 N.M. 246, 923 P.2d 1131 (1996-NM-052) (protects community by confinement of dangerous defendants)
- State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-112, 147 N.M. 279, 219 P.3d 1288 (2009-NMCA-112) (holding that presentence confinement credit applies to 31-9-1.5(D) commitments)