State v. Young, 35,315

Defendant Guy Young pled guilty to multiple offenses: 2 counts aggravated battery (deadly weapon), 2 counts armed robbery, aggravated burglary, 3 counts tampering with evidence, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.
The criminal complaint alleged Young battered victims with a hammer, then demanded money and threatened them — facts indicating the batteries occurred before the robbery demands.
The district court imposed sentences and ordered them to run consecutive to a previously imposed sentence from another proceeding.
Defendant appealed, claiming (a) double jeopardy (merger of aggravated battery with armed robbery), (b) cruel and unusual punishment, (c) error in running sentences consecutively, and (d) lack of factual basis for his plea.
The Court of Appeals issued a calendar notice proposing affirmance; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and moved to amend the docketing statement to add the cruel-and-unusual issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
A: Double jeopardy—do aggravated battery convictions merge with armed robbery?	State: Convictions supported by separate facts; distinct societal interests justify separate punishments.	Young: Convictions stem from unitary conduct; battery was the use of force for the robbery and should merge.	Affirmed: No merger. Batteries completed before robbery demands; statutes protect different interests; State’s theory did not subsume battery into robbery.
B: Cruel and unusual punishment	State: Sentence within statutory limits and supported by violent facts.	Young: Sentence is cruel and unusual.	Denied: Defendant failed to show sentence shocks the conscience given violent conduct.
C: Consecutive sentencing—did the court err by running sentence consecutive to separate sentence?	State: Trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences; combined term lawful and factually supported.	Young: District court erred in ordering consecutive service.	Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; combined sentence within statutory authority and supported by case facts.
D: Factual basis for plea	State: Charging documents and plea papers supplied a sufficient factual basis.	Young: District court failed to assure a factual basis for guilty plea.	Affirmed: Record (complaint and plea papers) provided adequate factual basis under Rule 5-304(G).

State v. Fuentes, 888 P.2d 986 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (rejecting merger of armed robbery and aggravated battery where statutes protect distinct interests)
State v. Swick, 279 P.3d 747 (N.M. 2012) (adopting modified Blockburger analysis for double-description cases)
State v. Gutierrez, 258 P.3d 1024 (N.M. 2011) (adopting modified approach to determine when statutes are vague and whether one crime is subsumed)
State v. Ira, 43 P.3d 359 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (standard for cruel and unusual punishment requires a sentence so disproportionate it shocks the conscience)
State v. Hall, 294 P.3d 1235 (N.M. 2013) (charging document, plea agreement, or plea transcript should establish factual basis for plea)
State v. Allen, 994 P.2d 728 (N.M. 2000) (decision to run sentences concurrently or consecutively rests within trial court discretion)
State v. Duran, 966 P.2d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (no abuse of discretion where sentence is consistent with statutory provisions)