Preview:

STATE V. CURRY, 2002-NMCA-092, 132 N.M. 602, 52 P.3d 974
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAMES M. CURRY IV, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 22,028
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
2002-NMCA-092, 132 N.M. 602, 52 P.3d 974
April 25, 2002, Filed
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY. Angela J. Jewell, District Judge.
Released for Publication August 30, 2002. Certiorari Denied, No. 27,528, June 10, 2002.
COUNSEL
Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Max Shepherd, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.
James M. Curry IV, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

JUDGES
CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge. WE CONCUR: A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge, IRA ROBINSON, Judge.  AUTHOR: CELIA FOY CASTILLO

OPINION


{*603} CASTILLO, Judge.
{1} The formal opinion filed in this case on March 15, 2002, is hereby withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted. Defendant James Curry's motion for rehearing is denied. Defendant appeals his convictions of embezzlement and fraud, and the denial of his motion for a new trial. We affirm.  

BACKGROUND
{2} Defendant began practicing law in 1981. During the time material to this case, Defendant was legal counsel for Maxima Collection Systems (Maxima), a company owned by Kenneth L. Peterson. Defendant and Peterson had been friends for almost 25 years. During that time, Defendant provided {*976} {*604} legal services to Peterson, they had business dealings with each other and they socialized together including the frequenting of casinos. At trial, Peterson's version of events departed significantly from Defendant's version. The following summary of facts is primarily based on Peterson's testimony.  
{3} In May 1998, Peterson fired Defendant as legal counsel for Maxima and requested the return of his retainer and any funds recovered by Defendant. Because Defendant had not kept an accurate accounting, they agreed that $ 5700 would cover the amount owed. Defendant wrote a check from his law office trust account to Peterson for $ 5700 with a notation on the check stating "refund balance on retainer" (the $ 5700 check). When Defendant delivered the $ 5700 check, he asked Peterson to loan him $ 1000 to pay his employees. Peterson, relying on Defendant's representations that the $ 5700 check was good and that he would be repaid, wrote a check on the Maxima account to Defendant for $ 1000. Peterson deposited the $ 5700 check in his bank account; it was returned for insufficient funds. Defendant cashed the $ 1000 check.  
{4} The State charged Defendant with embezzlement and fraud. At a bench trial, the court found Defendant guilty of both charges. Defendant filed a motion requesting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and the trial court denied it. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in weighing the evidence, that there is not substantial evidence to support his convictions, and that his motion for a new trial should have been granted.  

DISCUSSION
I. Weighing of Evidence  
{5} Defendant argues that the trial court erred in weighing the evidence and that his version of facts should have been adopted by the trial court. Defendant claims that "there are at least two innocent theories and the guilty one the court chose." We remind Defendant that in a bench trial, the court, not counsel, weighs the evidence. Further, this Court does not reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the trial court provided there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions. See State v. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-34, PP40-41, 130 N.M. 358, 24 P.3d 793.
{6} We review Defendant's claim under a substantial evidence standard of review. State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126, 131, 753 P.2d 1314, 1319 (1988). The evidence  {*605} is viewed in the light most favorable to the State and all conflicts are resolved in favor of the verdict. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-34, P40. The trial court summed up the testimony of Peterson and Defendant and believed Peterson's version of the facts based on his credibility. See In re Ernesto M. Jr., 1996-NMCA-39, P15, 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318 ("It was for the [trial] court as fact finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witness and to determine where the weight and credibility lay."). Defendant is clearly unhappy about the trial court's view of the evidence; this is not grounds for reversal. We affirm Defendant's convictions based on the following analysis.  
II. Substantial Evidence on Embezzlement Conviction  
{7} On the issue of embezzlement, Defendant's amended brief in chief is essentially a rationale for his actions, the same rationale he presented unsuccessfully at trial. Although it is
somewhat difficult to follow Defendant's contentions, we understand him to argue that there is insufficient evidence to convict him of embezzlement. Urging reversal, Defendant offers the following explanations for his actions: he wrote the $ 5700 check as an "antecedent civil debt and its worthlessness is irrelevant . . ."; the $ 5700 check is irrelevant because it is a "restitution check" for a personal debt to Peterson; Peterson put him under duress which caused Defendant to write the $ 5700 check; and this is a civil problem, therefore, it cannot be a criminal action.  
{8} Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction when substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction. Sutphin, 107 N.M. at 131, 753 P.2d at 1319. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to support the verdict by resolving all conflicts and indulging all permissible inferences in favor of upholding the verdict. Id. Using this standard, we review the conviction.  
{9} In order to find Defendant guilty of embezzlement, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Defendant was entrusted with over $ 2500; (2) Defendant converted this property to his own use; and (3) at the time Defendant converted the property, Defendant fraudulently intended to deprive the owner of the owner's property. NMSA 1978,

Download 2002-NMCA-092.pdf

New Mexico Law