Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2024 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2019"In reviewing a double-description double jeopardy challenge, ... we must first determine whether the defendant's conduct was unitary, requiring an analysis of whether or not a defendant's acts are separated by sufficient 'indicia of distinctness'." State v. Torres , 2018-NMSC-013 , ¶ 18, 413 P.3d 467 (citation omitted). 2019“In reviewing a double-description double jeopardy challenge, . . . we must first determine whether the defendant’s conduct was unitary, requiring an analysis of whether or not a defendant’s acts are separated by sufficient ‘indicia of distinctness’.” State v. Torres, 2018-NMSC-013, ¶ 18 , 413 P.3d 467 (citation omitted). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Swickgreen2 sentences2021See Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, ¶ 28 (recognizing the “general rule” that when faced with “impermissible multiple punishments,” we vacate the lesser offense (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶¶ 27, 29, 31 (reversing the defendant’s aggravated battery conviction because it carried a shorter sentence than attempted first-degree murder and confirming that where a double description double jeopardy violation occurs because one conviction is subsumed within another, we “vacate the convictions that carry the lesser punishment”). 2018In this 11 case, both parties concede that Defendant’s conduct was unitary. 12 {11} “When unitary conduct is the basis for multiple convictions, we must attempt 13 to determine whether ‘the Legislature[] inten[ded] to punish the crimes separately.’” 14 Torres, 2018-NMSC-013, ¶ 21 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Swick, 15 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 11 , 279 P.3d 747 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Portergreen2 sentences2023See State v. Begaye, 2023- NMSC-015, ¶ 13, 533 P.3d 1057 . “‘Only if the first part of the test is answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, will the double jeopardy clause prohibit multiple punishment in the same trial.’” Id. (quoting Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25.) {7} A defendant’s conduct is unitary “if the acts are not separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 12 , 476 P.3d 1201 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023See State v. Begaye, 2023- NMSC-015, ¶ 13, 533 P.3d 1057 . “‘Only if the first part of the test is answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, will the double jeopardy clause prohibit multiple punishment in the same trial.’” Id. (quoting Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25.) {7} A defendant’s conduct is unitary “if the acts are not separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 12 , 476 P.3d 1201 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Begayegreen2 sentences2023See State v. Begaye, 2023- NMSC-015, ¶ 13, 533 P.3d 1057 . “‘Only if the first part of the test is answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, will the double jeopardy clause prohibit multiple punishment in the same trial.’” Id. (quoting Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25.) {7} A defendant’s conduct is unitary “if the acts are not separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 12 , 476 P.3d 1201 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023See State v. Begaye, 2023- NMSC-015, ¶ 13, 533 P.3d 1057 . “‘Only if the first part of the test is answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, will the double jeopardy clause prohibit multiple punishment in the same trial.’” Id. (quoting Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25.) {7} A defendant’s conduct is unitary “if the acts are not separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 12 , 476 P.3d 1201 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Santillanesgreen1 sentence2021See Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, ¶ 28 (recognizing the “general rule” that when faced with “impermissible multiple punishments,” we vacate the lesser offense (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶¶ 27, 29, 31 (reversing the defendant’s aggravated battery conviction because it carried a shorter sentence than attempted first-degree murder and confirming that where a double description double jeopardy violation occurs because one conviction is subsumed within another, we “vacate the convictions that carry the lesser punishment”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 51 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (holding that a double-description claim requires “first analyzing whether the conduct underlying the offense is unitary, i.e., whether the same conduct violates both statutes, and, if so, proceeding to analyze whether the [L]egislature intended to create separately punishable offenses” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {7} The State agrees that Defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy was violated and his “conviction for conspiracy should be vacated.” Although we are not bound by the State’s co | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 51 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (holding that a double-description claim requires “first analyzing whether the conduct underlying the offense is unitary, i.e., whether the same conduct violates both statutes, and, if so, proceeding to analyze whether the [L]egislature intended to create separately punishable offenses” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {7} The State agrees that Defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy was violated and his “conviction for conspiracy should be vacated.” Although we are not bound by the State’s co 2019See State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 51 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (holding that a double-description claim requires “first analyzing whether the conduct underlying the offense is unitary, i.e., whether the same conduct violates both statutes, and, if so, proceeding to analyze whether the [L]egislature intended to create separately punishable offenses” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {7} The State agrees that Defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy was violated and his “conviction for conspiracy should be vacated.” Although we are not bound by the State’s co | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melendrezgreen1 sentence2019“Only if the first part of the test is answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, will the double jeopardy clause prohibit multiple punishment in the same trial.” Id. {15} In double-description cases, conduct is not unitary and multiple punishments are authorized if there is “an identifiable point at which one of the charged crimes ha[s] been completed and the other not yet committed.” State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 27 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 ; see State v. Melendrez, 2014-NMCA-062, ¶ 10 , 326 P.3d 1126 (“[W]hen there is an identifiable point between the completion o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bernal
green
2 sentences2024Defendant raises a double-description double jeopardy claim, “in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes.” State v. Bernal, 2006- NMSC-050, ¶ 7, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . 2024Defendant raises a double-description double jeopardy claim, “in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes.” State v. Bernal, 2006- NMSC-050, ¶ 7, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . | 10 | 2019–2024 |
Swafford v. State
green
2 sentences2023Defendant raises what is known as a double description double jeopardy claim, “in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . {6} In analyzing double description claims, we apply the two-part test set forth in Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 , determining first: (1) whether the conduct underlying the offenses is unitary; and (2) if so, whether the Legislature intended to punish the offenses separately. 2023Defendant raises what is known as a double description double jeopardy claim, “in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . {6} In analyzing double description claims, we apply the two-part test set forth in Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 , determining first: (1) whether the conduct underlying the offenses is unitary; and (2) if so, whether the Legislature intended to punish the offenses separately. | 7 | 2019–2024 |
State v. DeGraff
green
2 sentences2018The Double Jeopardy Clause Prohibits Multiple Punishments for Both Causing Death or Great Bodily Harm by Shooting into a Dwelling and First-Degree Murder for the Same Death {18} In reviewing a double-description double jeopardy challenge, where a defendant's conduct violates more than one statute, we must first determine whether the defendant's conduct was unitary, requiring an analysis of whether or not a defendant's acts are separated by sufficient "indicia of distinctness." State v. DeGraff , 2006-NMSC-011 , ¶¶ 26-27, 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 . 2018The Double Jeopardy Clause Prohibits Multiple Punishments for Both Causing Death or Great Bodily Harm by Shooting into a Dwelling and First-Degree Murder for the Same Death {18} In reviewing a double-description double jeopardy challenge, where a defendant's conduct violates more than one statute, we must first determine whether the defendant's conduct was unitary, requiring an analysis of whether or not a defendant's acts are separated by sufficient "indicia of distinctness." State v. DeGraff , 2006-NMSC-011 , ¶¶ 26-27, 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 . | 4 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Silvas
green
2 sentences2022State v. Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 9 , 343 P.3d 616 . 2022Defendant raises what is known as a double-description double jeopardy claim, “in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes.” State v. Bernal, 2006- NMSC-050, ¶ 7, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . {7} “In double-description cases . . . [our] Supreme Court has fashioned a double jeopardy analysis in which the polestar guiding courts is the Legislature’s intent to authorize multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 8 , 343 P.3d 616 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Torres
green
2 sentences2019"In reviewing a double-description double jeopardy challenge, ... we must first determine whether the defendant's conduct was unitary, requiring an analysis of whether or not a defendant's acts are separated by sufficient 'indicia of distinctness'." State v. Torres , 2018-NMSC-013 , ¶ 18, 413 P.3d 467 (citation omitted). 2019“In reviewing a double-description double jeopardy challenge, . . . we must first determine whether the defendant’s conduct was unitary, requiring an analysis of whether or not a defendant’s acts are separated by sufficient ‘indicia of distinctness’.” State v. Torres, 2018-NMSC-013, ¶ 18 , 413 P.3d 467 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Padilla
green
1 sentence2019We previously determined in Padilla I that “there are no indications of any legislative intent to allow multiple punishments for misdemeanor resisting/evading and aggravated fleeing when there is unitary conduct.” 2006-NMCA-107, ¶ 35 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.