State of New Mexico v. Tyler S. Phillips

Santa Fe, NM - Criminal defense attorney represented Tyler S. Phillips with a appeals his convictions for battery upon a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer..

Defendant appeals his convictions for battery upon a peace officer and resisting,

19 evading, or obstructing an officer. We previously issued a notice of proposed

20 summary disposition, proposing to uphold the convictions. Defendant has filed a

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Filed 1/11/2021 11:23 AM2

1 memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We

2 therefore affirm.

3 {2} Defendant renews his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. [MIO 1-5]

4 Because the relevant background information has previously been set forth, we will

5 avoid undue reiteration here, and focus instead on the newly-advanced substantive

6 content of the memorandum in opposition.

7 {3} We understand Defendant to tacitly acknowledge that the evidence presented

8 by the State was sufficient to support his conviction for resisting, evading, or

9 obstructing an officer. [MIO 1, 4] See, e.g., State v. Gutierrez, 2007-NMSC-033, ¶ 36,

10 142 N.M. 1, 162 P.3d 156 (finding sufficient evidence to support a conviction where

11 the defendant ignored and then ran from the arresting officer). We therefore adhere

12 to our initial assessment of this matter.

13 {4} With respect to the conviction for battery upon a peace officer, Defendant

14 specifically challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his intent. [MIO 4-

15 5] However, the circumstantial evidence supplied adequate support for the requisite

16 inference. See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-111, ¶¶ 14-15, 144 N.M. 705, 191

17 P.3d 563 (upholding a conviction for battery on a peace officer where the evidence,

18 when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, established that the defendant3

1 initially fled, and later struck the officer in the face as the officer was placing him

2 under arrest); see generally State v. Nozie, 2009-NMSC-018, ¶ 32, 146 N.M. 142, 207

3 P.3d 1119 (acknowledging that intent is seldom subject to proof by direct evidence,

4 and accordingly, intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence). We therefore

5 reject Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm.