Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-10-2024

Case Style:

State of New Mexico v. Edgar Alejandro Mendez

Case Number: A-1-CA-40445

Judge: Mary Marlowe

Court: District Court, Santa Fe County, New Mexico

Plaintiff's Attorney: Santa Fe County New Mexico District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:


Click Here For The Best Santa Fe Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory



Description:


Santa Fe, New Mexico felony homicide by vehicle criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.



For the June 7 motor vehicle accident, Defendant was convicted of one count of homicide by vehicle, contrary to NMSA 1978, Sections 66-8-101(A), (D) (2016) and 66-8-113 (1987); one count of great bodily harm by vehicle, contrary to Sections 66-8-101(B), (E) and 66-8-113; two counts of accidents involving death or personal injuries, contrary to Section 66-7-201(C) (1989); and two counts of failure to give immediate notice of accidents, contrary to Section 66-7-206 (1991, amended 2021). On appeal, Defendant argues that the jury was not instructed as to an essential element of the two charges related to accidents involving death or personal injuries.

For the June 13 incident, Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated battery upon a peace officer, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-25(C) (1971); two counts of aggravated assault upon a peace officer, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-22(A)(1) (1971); one count of evading an officer, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1(B) (1981);[2] two counts of resisting or abusing an officer, contrary to Section 30-22-1(D) (1981); and one count of concealing identity, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-3 (1963). On appeal, Defendant argues that his convictions for resisting, evading, abusing or obstructing an officer and his convictions for aggravated battery upon a peace officer and aggravated assault upon a peace officer are based on the same conduct and violate his double jeopardy rights.

Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, we reverse Defendant's two convictions for resisting or abusing an officer, contrary to Section 30-22-1(D)-as charged in Counts 11 and 13-and remand with directions that the district court vacate those convictions, dismiss those charges, and resentence Defendant. Otherwise, we affirm.

State v. Mendez, A-1-CA-40445 (N.M. App. Sep 10, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: