1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 Opinion Number:
3 Filing Date: June 30, 2015
4 NO. 32,564
5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
6 Plaintiff-Appellee,
7 v.
8 MANUEL FERNANDEZ,
9 Defendant-Appellant.
10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 11 Sarah C. Backus, District Judge
12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Jane A. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellee
17 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 18 J. K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM
20 for Appellant 1 OPINION
2 FRY, Judge.
3 {1} Defendant appeals from his conviction for criminal damage to property valued
4 in excess of $1000 on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. He also appeals
5 from his sentencing as a habitual offender, arguing that the State made no prima facie
6 showing of three prior usable felonies. We agree that the evidence for Defendant’s
7 felony conviction was insufficient and therefore reverse.
8 BACKGROUND
9 {2} On December 5, 2010, David Satrun, the victim, encountered a green Dodge
10 Durango driving erratically and aggressively. The driver of the Durango, later
11 identified as Defendant, passed Satrun more than once before getting out of his
12 vehicle to yell at Satrun and kick Satrun’s door. Satrun drove away, but Defendant
13 followed and struck the back of Satrun’s vehicle with his Durango. Defendant then
14 pulled up alongside Satrun’s door, pinning it shut. Satrun again drove away from
15 Defendant to a gas station, where he called the police. At the time of the accident,
16 Satrun was driving a 1998 white GMC pickup.
17 {3} Defendant was eventually arrested and charged with seven counts: aggravated
18 assault with a deadly weapon (Counts 1 and 2); criminal damage to property in excess
19 of $1000 (Count 3); driving with a suspended license (Count 4); leaving the scene of 1 an accident (Counts 5 and 6); and concealing identity (Count 7). He was convicted
2 on Counts 3, 5, 6, and 7, and sentenced as a habitual offender on the ground that he
3 had three usable prior felonies. Defendant appeals on two grounds: (1) the evidence
4 was insufficient to prove the amount of property damage to Satrun’s pickup, making
5 Count 3 unsustainable; and (2) the enhanced sentence was not legal because the State
6 did not provide adequate proof that the out-of-state felony conviction used during
7 sentencing was actually his.
8 DISCUSSION
9 {4} We review claims as to the sufficiency of the evidence “in the light most
10 favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all
11 conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-
12 009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176. However, we must also determine whether
13 substantial evidence exists “and supports a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
14 with respect to every element essential for conviction.” State v. Kent, 2006-NMCA
15 134, ¶ 10, 140 N.M. 606, 145 P.3d 86. If the evidence presented “must be buttressed
16 by surmise and conjecture, rather than logical inference[,]” it will not be sufficient to
17 support a conviction. State v. Vigil, 1975-NMSC-013, ¶ 12, 87 N.M. 345, 533 P.2d
18 578 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In making this determination, we
19 do not in any way “substitute [our] judgment for that of the factfinder.” State v. Mora,
2 1 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789, abrogation on other grounds
2 recognized by Kersey v. Hatch, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683.
3 {5} To convict Defendant of felony criminal damage to property, the State was
4 required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that Defendant intentionally
5 damaged the property of another and that the amount of damage exceeded $1000. See
6 NMSA 1978, § 30-15-1 (1963); UJI 14-1501 NMRA. In accordance with UJI 14-
7 1510 NMRA, the “amount of damage” is defined as:
8 the difference between the price at which the property could ordinarily 9 be bought or sold prior to the damage and the price at which the 10 property could be bought or sold after the damage. If the cost of repair 11 of the damaged property exceeds the replacement cost of the property, 12 the value of the damaged property is the replacement cost.
13 {6} During the trial, the State offered substantial evidence of damage to Satrun’s
14 pickup, including several photographs of the truck taken by a sheriff’s deputy. Satrun
15 testified to further explain the damage, claiming that his back bumper was
16 “destroyed,” his tailgate misaligned, and that Defendant’s kick to his front door left
17 a severe dent. He admitted that some of the damage pictured had been incurred during
18 previous accidents. All told, Satrun testified that the cost to repair the damage
19 Defendant inflicted was about $1500 or $1600.
20 {7} Defendant does not dispute that the cost of repair was over $1000, but he
21 argues that “the mere cost of repair was insufficient—the State had to prove that the
3 1 cost of replacement was not less than the cost of repair.” The State did not offer
2 testimony as to the condition of the pickup, its mileage, or its likely replacement cost,
3 arguing that “there is no absolute requirement” that it do so.
4 {8} The instruction UJI 14-1510 provides two ways of determining the amount of
5 damage: “diminution in value” and “cost of repair.” State v. Barreras, 2007-NMCA-
6 067, ¶¶ 5-6, 141 N.M. 653, 159 P.3d 1138. The first method, “diminution in value,”
7 is the “before[-]and[-]after value” of the property. Id. ¶ 5. The second method, at issue
8 here, is the “cost of repair.” In Barreras, the defendant used a tire iron to damage a
9 one-year-old Cadillac Escalade that was previously in good condition. Id. ¶ 2. The
10 cost to repair the damage was $5100, but the State offered no specific evidence as to
11 replacement cost. Id. ¶¶ 2, 8. The defendant argued on appeal that “to prove the
12 amount of damages under the second method, the State must present evidence of both
13 the cost of repair and the cost of replacement so that the jury can compare them to
14 determine if the cost of repair exceeds the replacement cost.” Id. ¶ 8. We rejected that
15 argument for two reasons: (1) the defendant did not “seriously place in dispute on
16 appeal” whether the replacement cost exceeded the cost of repair; and (2) the
17 “average juror” would be aware that the replacement cost of the Cadillac would be
18 higher than the cost of repair. Id. ¶ 9. We reasoned that “if the cost of repair does not
19 exceed the replacement cost of the property, then the cost of repair is the value used
4 1 to determine the amount of damage.” Id. ¶ 6. Because the jurors “would know that
2 such a high-end sport utility vehicle has a replacement cost well over $5100[,]” the
3 cost of repair was the appropriate value to use. Id. ¶ 9.
4 {9} As we noted in Barreras, however, “[e]vidence of replacement cost may be
5 necessary where the vehicle is older and/or made by a lesser-named manufacturer”
6 than the one-year-old Cadillac at issue in that case. Id. ¶ 9. As our Supreme Court has
7 recently affirmed, the amount of damage is “the cost of repair or replacement,
8 whichever is less.” State v. Cobrera, 2013-NMSC-012, ¶ 8, 300 P.3d 729 (emphasis
9 added).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 Opinion Number:
3 Filing Date: June 30, 2015
4 NO. 32,564
5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
6 Plaintiff-Appellee,
7 v.
8 MANUEL FERNANDEZ,
9 Defendant-Appellant.
10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY 11 Sarah C. Backus, District Judge
12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Jane A. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellee
17 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 18 J. K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM
20 for Appellant 1 OPINION
2 FRY, Judge.
3 {1} Defendant appeals from his conviction for criminal damage to property valued
4 in excess of $1000 on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. He also appeals
5 from his sentencing as a habitual offender, arguing that the State made no prima facie
6 showing of three prior usable felonies. We agree that the evidence for Defendant’s
7 felony conviction was insufficient and therefore reverse.
8 BACKGROUND
9 {2} On December 5, 2010, David Satrun, the victim, encountered a green Dodge
10 Durango driving erratically and aggressively. The driver of the Durango, later
11 identified as Defendant, passed Satrun more than once before getting out of his
12 vehicle to yell at Satrun and kick Satrun’s door. Satrun drove away, but Defendant
13 followed and struck the back of Satrun’s vehicle with his Durango. Defendant then
14 pulled up alongside Satrun’s door, pinning it shut. Satrun again drove away from
15 Defendant to a gas station, where he called the police. At the time of the accident,
16 Satrun was driving a 1998 white GMC pickup.
17 {3} Defendant was eventually arrested and charged with seven counts: aggravated
18 assault with a deadly weapon (Counts 1 and 2); criminal damage to property in excess
19 of $1000 (Count 3); driving with a suspended license (Count 4); leaving the scene of 1 an accident (Counts 5 and 6); and concealing identity (Count 7). He was convicted
2 on Counts 3, 5, 6, and 7, and sentenced as a habitual offender on the ground that he
3 had three usable prior felonies. Defendant appeals on two grounds: (1) the evidence
4 was insufficient to prove the amount of property damage to Satrun’s pickup, making
5 Count 3 unsustainable; and (2) the enhanced sentence was not legal because the State
6 did not provide adequate proof that the out-of-state felony conviction used during
7 sentencing was actually his.
8 DISCUSSION
9 {4} We review claims as to the sufficiency of the evidence “in the light most
10 favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all
11 conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-
12 009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176. However, we must also determine whether
13 substantial evidence exists “and supports a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
14 with respect to every element essential for conviction.” State v. Kent, 2006-NMCA
15 134, ¶ 10, 140 N.M. 606, 145 P.3d 86. If the evidence presented “must be buttressed
16 by surmise and conjecture, rather than logical inference[,]” it will not be sufficient to
17 support a conviction. State v. Vigil, 1975-NMSC-013, ¶ 12, 87 N.M. 345, 533 P.2d
18 578 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In making this determination, we
19 do not in any way “substitute [our] judgment for that of the factfinder.” State v. Mora,
2 1 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789, abrogation on other grounds
2 recognized by Kersey v. Hatch, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683.
3 {5} To convict Defendant of felony criminal damage to property, the State was
4 required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that Defendant intentionally
5 damaged the property of another and that the amount of damage exceeded $1000. See
6 NMSA 1978, § 30-15-1 (1963); UJI 14-1501 NMRA. In accordance with UJI 14-
7 1510 NMRA, the “amount of damage” is defined as:
8 the difference between the price at which the property could ordinarily 9 be bought or sold prior to the damage and the price at which the 10 property could be bought or sold after the damage. If the cost of repair 11 of the damaged property exceeds the replacement cost of the property, 12 the value of the damaged property is the replacement cost.
13 {6} During the trial, the State offered substantial evidence of damage to Satrun’s
14 pickup, including several photographs of the truck taken by a sheriff’s deputy. Satrun
15 testified to further explain the damage, claiming that his back bumper was
16 “destroyed,” his tailgate misaligned, and that Defendant’s kick to his front door left
17 a severe dent. He admitted that some of the damage pictured had been incurred during
18 previous accidents. All told, Satrun testified that the cost to repair the damage
19 Defendant inflicted was about $1500 or $1600.
20 {7} Defendant does not dispute that the cost of repair was over $1000, but he
21 argues that “the mere cost of repair was insufficient—the State had to prove that the
3 1 cost of replacement was not less than the cost of repair.” The State did not offer
2 testimony as to the condition of the pickup, its mileage, or its likely replacement cost,
3 arguing that “there is no absolute requirement” that it do so.
4 {8} The instruction UJI 14-1510 provides two ways of determining the amount of
5 damage: “diminution in value” and “cost of repair.” State v. Barreras, 2007-NMCA-
6 067, ¶¶ 5-6, 141 N.M. 653, 159 P.3d 1138. The first method, “diminution in value,”
7 is the “before[-]and[-]after value” of the property. Id. ¶ 5. The second method, at issue
8 here, is the “cost of repair.” In Barreras, the defendant used a tire iron to damage a
9 one-year-old Cadillac Escalade that was previously in good condition. Id. ¶ 2. The
10 cost to repair the damage was $5100, but the State offered no specific evidence as to
11 replacement cost. Id. ¶¶ 2, 8. The defendant argued on appeal that “to prove the
12 amount of damages under the second method, the State must present evidence of both
13 the cost of repair and the cost of replacement so that the jury can compare them to
14 determine if the cost of repair exceeds the replacement cost.” Id. ¶ 8. We rejected that
15 argument for two reasons: (1) the defendant did not “seriously place in dispute on
16 appeal” whether the replacement cost exceeded the cost of repair; and (2) the
17 “average juror” would be aware that the replacement cost of the Cadillac would be
18 higher than the cost of repair. Id. ¶ 9. We reasoned that “if the cost of repair does not
19 exceed the replacement cost of the property, then the cost of repair is the value used
4 1 to determine the amount of damage.” Id. ¶ 6. Because the jurors “would know that
2 such a high-end sport utility vehicle has a replacement cost well over $5100[,]” the
3 cost of repair was the appropriate value to use. Id. ¶ 9.
4 {9} As we noted in Barreras, however, “[e]vidence of replacement cost may be
5 necessary where the vehicle is older and/or made by a lesser-named manufacturer”
6 than the one-year-old Cadillac at issue in that case. Id. ¶ 9. As our Supreme Court has
7 recently affirmed, the amount of damage is “the cost of repair or replacement,
8 whichever is less.” State v. Cobrera, 2013-NMSC-012, ¶ 8, 300 P.3d 729 (emphasis
9 added). In some cases, as in Barreras, the facts may clearly establish that the
10 replacement cost would exceed the cost of repair and no additional evidence or
11 testimony may be required; nonetheless, the replacement cost remains part of the
12 State’s burden. Id.; Barreras, 2007-NMCA-067, ¶ 9.
13 {10} In the present case, the “average juror” had no basis upon which to determine
14 that the replacement cost of Satrun’s pickup truck, which was over a decade old and
15 had noticeable preexisting damage, would be “well over” the $1500 cost of repair.
16 Barreras, 2007-NMCA-067, ¶ 9. The State observes that the jury was given
17 “photographs of [Satrun’s] stricken truck” in addition to the testimony regarding the
18 cost of repair, but the photographs included evidence of unrelated cosmetic damage,
19 dirt, and general wear. Without further information regarding the pickup, such as its
5 1 mileage, the photographs could not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that the
2 replacement cost would be greater than the cost of repair. Exactly as contemplated in
3 Barreras, this case required the State to submit evidence as to such replacement cost
4 so that the jury could reasonably determine whether it exceeded the cost of repair or
5 not. 2007-NMCA-067, ¶ 9.
6 {11} The State suggests that Defendant waived the issue of the pickup’s proper
7 valuation when he failed to cross-examine the State’s witnesses on the replacement
8 cost. Because this is not an affirmative defense but rather a matter of the State’s own
9 burden, Defendant bore no obligation to offer or contest evidence that the State itself
10 did not present. State v. Munoz, 1998-NMSC-041, ¶ 15, 126 N.M. 371, 970 P.2d 143.
11 Furthermore, whatever his strategy in cross-examination, Defendant has “seriously
12 place[d] in dispute on appeal” that the pickup was worth the $1,500 cost of repair,
13 given its age, previous damage, unknown mileage, and unknown mechanical
14 condition. Barreras, 2007-NMCA-067, ¶ 9.
15 {12} This case is therefore distinguishable from Barreras and, by refusing to offer
16 evidence regarding replacement cost, the State has failed to meet its burden for felony
17 property damage beyond a reasonable doubt.
18 {13} In some cases, “appellate courts have the authority to remand a case for entry
19 of judgment on the lesser included offense and resentencing rather than retrial when
6 1 the evidence does not support the offense for which the defendant was convicted but
2 does support a lesser included offense.” State v. Haynie, 1994-NMSC-001, ¶ 4, 116
3 N.M. 746, 867 P.2d 416. The “direct remand” rule does not apply, however, in cases
4 in which the jury was not instructed on a lesser included offense. State v. Villa, 2004-
5 NMSC-031, ¶¶ 9, 12, 136 N.M. 367, 98 P.3d 1017.
6 {14} Here, the jury was not instructed on lesser-included offenses, such as
7 misdemeanor property damage amounting to less than $1000. When the State only
8 instructs on the greater offense, we will not second-guess its “all-or-nothing trial
9 strategy,” id. ¶ 14, because to convict Defendant of an offense with which the jury
10 was never presented would deprive him of notice and be inconsistent with our law.
11 State v. Slade, 2014-NMCA-088, ¶ 38, 331 P.3d 930. Therefore, we will not remand
12 for resentencing Defendant for misdemeanor property damage where the evidence is
13 insufficient to demonstrate the requisite amount of damages for a felony conviction.
14 CONCLUSION
15 {15} For the reasons stated above, we reverse Defendant’s conviction as to Count
16 3, for criminal damage to property valued in excess of $1000. Because all the
17 remaining counts of which Defendant was convicted are misdemeanors, the habitual
18 sentencing enhancement is no longer at issue. See NMSA 1978, § 31-18-17(A) (2003)
7 1 (applying to “[a] person convicted of a noncapital felony” who has one or more prior
2 felony convictions).
3 {16} IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 ___________________________________ 5 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
6 WE CONCUR:
7 ____________________________ 8 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
9 ____________________________ 10 RODERICK KENNEDY, Judge