Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 CITY OF ESPANOLA, 8 9 v. 10 CHRISTOBAL ARCHULETA, 11 Defendant-Appellant. Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 28,620

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY 13 Timothy L. Garcia, District Judge 14 Angela Rosalina Pacheco, City Attorney 15 Espanola, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Steven G. Farber 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 21 KENNEDY, Judge. 22 Frustrated with repeated acts of vandalism perpetrated against his automotive MEMORANDUM OPINION

23 dealership, located in Espanola, New Mexico, Defendant-Appellant Christobal

1 Archuleta decided to arm himself and stand guard at the lot to prevent further 2 depredations. Earlier in the day, he'd talked to Sergeant Griego of the Espanola 3 Police Department and told him that he would be standing guard. Sergeant Griego 4 then gave this information to fellow officer Corporal Wright, who was working the 5 graveyard shift that evening. As promised, Archuleta went to his lot just after ten in 6 the evening that night, November 11, 2006, armed with a shotgun. 7 About 4 a.m., Espanola police officers, including Corporal Wright, were

8 dispatched to the car lot on a call involving a person with a gun. Upon arrival, they 9 encountered Archuleta, armed with a shotgun and dressed in a dark, hooded 10 sweatshirt. The officers, unaware of Archuleta's identity, got out of their cars with 11 guns drawn, and demanded Archuleta put his weapon down, and get on the ground. 12 Archuleta was slow to do so, but after a short time, he placed the shotgun on the hood 13 of a truck next to him. He then reached into his sweatshirt, retrieved a mobile phone, 14 and proceeded to place a call. He did not comply with several other demands to put 15 down the phone and get on the ground. A few seconds later, one police officer came 16 up to the truck and removed the shotgun from the hood without any reaction from 17 Archuleta, who continued to talk on the telephone. The officer who had taken the gun 18 then returned, and took Archuleta by the arm, and began to lead him away. Corporal

2

1 Wright then approached, holstering his own weapon, and took Archuleta's other arm. 2 Within seconds, the first officer executed a "take down" move, tripping Archuleta to 3 the ground. This maneuver also inadvertently tripped Corporal Wright, who likewise 4 fell down in the tangle. Officers then forcibly subdued Archuleta, pepper-sprayed him 5 in the face, handcuffed, and arrested him. 6 Corporal Wright testified that at no time did Archuleta point the shotgun at

7 anyone, and that he had been told that someone would be present that night at 8 Archuleta's car lot, but that it was not mentioned that anyone would be armed. 9 Archuleta was convicted in municipal court and appealed to the district court

10 for an appeal de novo. The district court convicted him of violating Espanola 11 Municipal Ordinance Section 70-211(a)(4), which proscribes "[r]esisting or abusing 12 any . . . peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties." Defendant now raises a 13 variety of arguments for reversal, but owing mostly to the specificity with which the 14 district court convicted him under that particular ordinance subsection, we hold that 15 his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence. Under the statutory scheme 16 chosen by the drafters of Espanola's Municipal Code, Archuleta neither resisted nor 17 abused the police; we accordingly reverse. 18 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

3

1

The City of Espanola (City) filed a criminal complaint against Archuleta

2 alleging four counts: "Refusing to Obey or Assist Officers [,] . . . Resisting, Evading, 3 or Obstructing an Officer[,] . . . Disorderly Conduct[,] . . . [and] Battery." The City 4 later amended its complaint and dropped all counts except Resisting, Evading or 5 Obstructing an Officer in violation of Ordinance Section 70-211. The municipal court 6 convicted Archuleta, and he appealed to the district court for a trial de novo. 7 Following trial the district court affirmed Archuleta's conviction. It found that

8 Archuleta's identity was unknown to officers at the time of his detention and that his 9 actions were insufficient to properly assert a constitutional right to defend his property 10 with a weapon. The district court went on to analyze Archuleta's other actions and 11 found that he refused to obey police orders during a valid investigation. Such refusals, 12 the court concluded, constitute "resisting" but not abusing, under "Ordinance Section 13 70-211(a)(4)." The district court then remanded Archuleta's case to the municipal 14 court for sentencing. 15 Archuleta appeals his conviction and argues that since our state constitution

16 guarantees his right to bear arms for security and for the defense of his property, the 17 police had no reason to detain him. He also argues that the ordinance, as applied, was 18 unconstitutional; that by its interpretation of the ordinance, the district court denied

4

1 him the rule of lenity; that he was not properly notified of the charges against him; 2 that the ordinance, as applied, was both overbroad and void for vagueness; that the 3 district court committed error by not considering his post-trial motions and by not 4 publishing written findings of fact; and finally, that the evidence presented at trial 5 does not support his conviction under Ordinance Section 70-211(a)(4) of the Espanola 6 Municipal Code. We agree with this last assertion and hold that substantial evidence 7 does not support Archuleta's conviction under the scheme chosen by the drafters of 8 the Espanola Municipal Code, specifically, Ordinance Sections 70-211(a)(4) and 709 212. We have no occasion to reach Archuleta's other arguments. 10 DISCUSSION 11 In determining whether sufficient evidence supports a conviction, we consider

12 "the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict." State v. Prince, 199913 NMCA-010,

Download CA28620.pdf

New Mexico Law