Preview:

STATE V. TURNER, 2007-NMCA-105, 142 N.M. 460, 166 P.3d 1114
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
REGINALD TURNER,
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 26,159 and 26,256
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
2007-NMCA-105, 142 N.M. 460, 166 P.3d 1114
June 15, 2007, Filed

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, Karen L. Parsons, District Judge. Certiorari Denied, No. 30,525, August 8, 2007. Released for Publication August 28, 2007.
COUNSEL
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. John Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Susan Roth, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

JUDGES
LYNN PICKARD, Judge. WE CONCUR: A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge, MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge. AUTHOR: LYNN PICKARD.

OPINION
PICKARD, Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals his convictions for one count of forgery, one count of fraud over $20,000, and two counts of conspiracy arising out of his refinancing of his marital residence without his then-wife's knowledge or agreement.  On appeal, Defendant contends that his two conspiracy convictions violate double jeopardy and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of fraud over $20,000. The State has also filed an appeal asserting that the district court erred in dismissing two additional forgery counts.  We reverse in part, holding that Defendant's convictions for two conspiracy counts violated double jeopardy.  In all other respects, however, we affirm the district court.

BACKGROUND
{2} Defendant and his wife were married in 1995. A few years later, Defendant and his wife purchased a house using money earned from the wife's stock dividends and a loan secured from Defendant's sister and brother-in-law to make a down payment.  The remainder of the purchase price was secured by a mortgage.
{3} Defendant and his wife eventually began to have marital problems.  It was during that time that Defendant began asking his wife if they could refinance their home.  Defendant's wife repeatedly declined his requests, as she had already decided to seek a divorce.  Even after the wife's petition for divorce was filed in October 2003, Defendant continued to ask his wife if the house could be refinanced. She continued to refuse.
{4} In 2003, without his wife's knowledge, Defendant contacted GSV Title Services (GSV) regarding a possible refinancing of the marital home.  On December 9, 2003, the day set for the closing on the refinancing, Defendant and an unidentified woman -- not Defendant's wife -- went to GSV to sign the closing documents.  Defendant introduced the woman to GSV employees as his wife. Defendant and the woman signed the closing documents together, with the woman signing Defendant's wife's name.
{5} As part of the refinancing, either a home equity line of credit or a second mortgage was taken out against the existing equity in the home.  After some credit card debt and closing costs and fees were paid from the loan, a check was issued to Defendant and his wife in the amount of $32,635.69. At closing, Defendant told GSV to hold onto the check because he was going on vacation. He later returned to GSV on his own to pick up the check, which was dated about a week after the closing. The check was thereafter negotiated.  At trial, Defendant's wife testified that she did not endorse the check and that she did not receive any of the loan proceeds.
{6} On the same day of the closing, a default divorce decree was filed because Defendant had not responded to the petition for divorce. The decree awarded the couple's home to the wife, provided for joint legal custody of the couple's child, set child support payment amounts, and otherwise distributed the couple's remaining community property.  Defendant gave his wife a quitclaim deed to the house a month or two after the decree was filed.
{7} Sometime after the divorce, Defendant's wife learned that Defendant had refinanced the home.  Defendant was subsequently arrested and indicted on one count of fraud over $20,000, three counts of forgery, and four counts of conspiracy. Before trial, two of the conspiracy charges and two of the forgery charges were dismissed.  Defendant was convicted by a jury on the remaining counts.  Defendant and the State have both appealed.

DISCUSSION
{8} On appeal, Defendant contends that his convictions for two counts of conspiracy violate double jeopardy because there was only one agreement to refinance his home and deceive his wife. He further contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of fraud over $20,000 because the State never proved that the amount of the fraud was over $20,000.  In its cross-appeal, the State maintains that the district court erred in dismissing two of Defendant's forgery counts. The State does concede, however, that the district court should have dismissed one of Defendant's two conspiracy counts.  Accordingly, we first address whether Defendant's convictions for two counts of conspiracy violated double jeopardy.  Next, we determine whether sufficient evidence exists to convict Defendant of fraud over $20,000.  Finally, we address the State's argument on cross-appeal that the district court should not have dismissed two of the forgery counts against Defendant. We hold that the district court erred in allowing two counts of conspiracy to go to the jury and therefore reverse one of Defendant's convictions for conspiracy. As to the remaining issues on appeal, we affirm the district court.
Conspiracy
{9} Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud and of conspiracy to commit forgery, with both convictions stemming from his actions in refinancing the marital home without his wife's permission or knowledge.  According to Defendant, because both counts arise out of the same agreement and plan, his conviction on both counts violates double jeopardy.  The State concedes that one of the two conspiracy charges should have been dismissed.  Although we are not bound by the State's concession, State v. Foster, 1999-NMSC-007,

Download 2007-NMCA-105.pdf

New Mexico Law