State v. Boyle

• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Filing Date: July 6, 2023

3 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

4 Plaintiff-Appellee,

5 v. NO. S-1-SC-39189

6 SERGIO Z. BOYLE,

7 Defendant-Appellant.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 9 Angie K. Schneider, District Judge

10 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 11 Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM

13 for Appellant

14 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 15 Leland M. Churan, Assistant Attorney General 16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellee

18 DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

19 VIGIL, Justice.

20 {1} WHEREAS, this matter comes before the Court on the direct appeal of Sergio

21 Boyle (Defendant) from his convictions for first degree murder, NMSA 1978, § 30- 1 2-1(A)(1) (1994) (“a capital felony”), tampering with evidence, NMSA 1978, § 30-

2 22-5 (2003), and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, NMSA 1978, § 30-16D-1(A)(1)

3 (2009); see Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA (providing that capital appeals “shall be taken

4 to the Supreme Court”);

5 {2} WHEREAS, Defendant challenges only his conviction for unlawful taking of

6 a motor vehicle;

7 {3} WHEREAS, Defendant’s challenge is that the State failed to prove the

8 “definitive ownership” of the vehicle allegedly taken;

9 {4} WHEREAS, this Court has considered the briefs and is otherwise fully

10 informed on the issues and applicable law;

11 {5} WHEREAS, this Court hereby exercises its discretion under Rule 12-

12 405(B)(1)-(2) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a

13 formal opinion;

14 {6} WHEREAS, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we “view the

15 evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable

16 inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict,” State

17 v. Holt, 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 20, 368 P.3d 409 (internal quotation marks and citation

18 omitted);

2 1 {7} WHEREAS, the applicable statute prohibits a person from “taking any vehicle

2 . . . intentionally and without consent of the owner,” § 30-16D-1(A);

3 {8} WHEREAS, the State presented testimony that Antonio Armendariz (Victim)

4 owned the 1986 Chevy truck in question;

5 {9} WHEREAS, Defendant admitted that he did not own Victim’s truck and that

6 he took Victim’s truck without permission;

7 {10} WHEREAS, the jury instructions given to the jury required the State to prove

8 Defendant took the truck without the owner’s consent and did not require the State

9 to present evidence of the owner’s identity or proof of legal title, see UJI 14-1660

10 NMRA;

11 {11} WHEREAS, “[J]ury instructions become the law of the case against which

12 the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured.” State v. Arrendondo, 2012-

13 NMSC-013, ¶ 18, 278 P.3d 517 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);

14 {12} WHEREAS, this Court determines the evidence was sufficient to support the

15 jury’s finding that Defendant intentionally took Victim’s truck without consent;

16 {13} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s conviction for

17 unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is affirmed and that Defendant’s remaining

18 convictions are likewise affirmed.

3 1 {14} IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

4 WE CONCUR:

5 6 C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

7 8 DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

9 10 JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

11 12 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice