A-1-CA-38012 | Omnilex

Texte intégral

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court’s discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,	2
Plaintiff-Appellee,	3
v. 	No. A-1-CA-38012	4
MALORIE PERKINS,	5
Defendant-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY	7
Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge	8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	9
Charles J. Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General	10
Santa Fe, NM	11
for Appellee	12
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender	13
Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender	14
Santa Fe, NM	15
for Appellant	16
MEMORANDUM OPINION	17
HANISEE, Chief Judge.	18
{1} 	Defendant has appealed her convictions for misdemeanor battery and felony-	19
level tampering with evidence. We issued a second notice of proposed summary	20
disposition in which we proposed to affirm with respect to the sufficiency of the	21
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 10/18/2019 8:55 AM

2
evidence, but to reverse and remand for amendment of the judgment and sentence to	1
reflect a conviction for tampering with evidence of an indeterminate offense (a petty	2
misdemeanor), and for resentencing in accordance with State v. Radosevich, 2018-	3
NMSC-028, ¶ 22, 419 P.3d 176.	4
{2} 	Defendant has filed a response indicating that she continues to oppose our	5
proposed summary disposition with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence. We	6
remain unpersuaded. The State has filed a response indicating that it does not oppose	7
our proposal to reverse in part and remand for the purpose of amending the judgment	8
and sentence and resentencing in accordance with Radosevich.	9
{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we affirm with respect of the	10
sufficiency of the evidence. However, we reverse in part and remand with instructions	11
to amend the judgment and sentence to reflect a conviction for indeterminate offense	12
tampering, and to resentence accordingly.	13
{4} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	14
__________________________________	15
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge	16

3
WE CONCUR:	1
_________________________________	2
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge	3
_________________________________	4
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge	5

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court’s discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, UL. 2019 8:09 AM
Plaintiff-Appellee, ~£e4
Mark Reynolds
V. No. A-1-CA-38012
MALORIE PERKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY

Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Charles J. Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HANISEE, Chief Judge.
43 Defendant has appealed her convictions for misdemeanor battery and felony-

level tampering with evidence. We issued a second notice of proposed summary

disposition in which we proposed to affirm with respect to the sufficiency of the

2
evidence, but to reverse and remand for amendment of the judgment and sentence to 1
reflect a conviction for tampering with evidence of an indeterminate offense (a petty 2
misdemeanor), and for resentencing in accordance with State v. Radosevich, 2018- 3
NMSC-028, ¶ 22, 419 P.3d 176. 4
{2} Defendant has filed a response indicating that she continues to oppose our 5
proposed summary disposition with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence. We 6
remain unpersuaded. The State has filed a response indicating that it does not oppose 7
our proposal to reverse in part and remand for the purpose of amending the judgment 8
and sentence and resentencing in accordance with Radosevich. 9
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons previously stated, we affirm with respect of the 10
sufficiency of the evidence. However, we reverse in part and remand with instructions 11
to amend the judgment and sentence to reflect a conviction for indeterminate offense 12
tampering, and to resentence accordingly. 13
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14
__________________________________ 15
J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge 16

WE CONCUR:

= NTEER L. ATTREP, Judge

BRIANA H. ZQMORA, Judge

October 18, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Malorie Perkins, No. A-1-CA-38012

Texte intégral

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude