Preview:

1 STATE V. LANEY, 2003-NMCA-144, 134 N.M. 648, 81 P.3d 591 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES LANEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 22,748 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2003-NMCA-144, 134 N.M. 648, 81 P.3d 591 October 14, 2003, Filed APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Neil Candelaria, District Judge. Certiorari Denied, No. 28,360, December 1, 2003. Released for Publication December 16, 2003. COUNSEL Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, James O. Bell, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee. John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Trace L. Rabern, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant. JUDGES MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. WE CONCUR: CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge, RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge. AUTHOR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE. OPINION

BUSTAMANTE, Judge. {1} Defendant James Laney appeals his conviction for homicide by vehicle (reckless), great bodily injury by vehicle, leaving the scene of an accident (great bodily harm or death), and reckless driving. Defendant raises six issues for our review: (1) speedy trial violation, (2) improper testimony elicited by the State from its expert witness, (3) denial of his proposed jury instruction on "operating" a motor vehicle, (4) fundamental error in failing to declare a mistrial, (5) merger of his convictions for vehicular homicide and the lesser- included offense of reckless driving, and (6) cumulative error. As to the fifth issue, the State agrees that it was error to convict and sentence Defendant on the lesser-included offense of reckless driving, and therefore, we do not consider this issue on appeal. As to the remaining issues, we find no error and, hence, no cumulative error. We affirm and remand, directing the district court to enter an amended judgment and sentence vacating the reckless driving conviction. See State v. Pierce, 110 N.M. 76, 87, 792 P.2d 408, 419 (1990) (holding that State may charge separately for the same offense, but the convictions for more than one of the offenses cannot stand). All other issues raised in Defendant's docketing statement are deemed abandoned. State v. Fish, 102 N.M. 775, 777, 701

Download 2003-NMCA-144.pdf

New Mexico Law