IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1

2

3

4

NO. S -1- SC -3 918 9 5 Filing D ate: July 6, 202 3
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff -A ppellee ,

v.

SERGIO Z. BOYLE, 6

De fendant

- Appellant. 7

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 8 Angie K. Schneider , District Judge 9

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 10 Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender 11 Santa Fe , NM 12
for Appellant 13

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 14 Leland M. Churan , Assistant Attorney General 15 Santa Fe , NM 16
for Appellee 17

D IS PO SITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 18
VIGIL, Justice

. 19

{1} WHEREAS, this matter comes before the Court on the direct appeal of Sergio 20
Boyle (Defendant) from his convictions for first degree murder, NMSA 1978, § 30

- 21 The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23- 112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.2 2

- 1(A)(1) (1994) (“a capital felony”), tampering with evidence, NMSA 1978, § 30

- 1

22

- 5 (2003), and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, NMSA 1978, § 30

- 16D

- 1(A)(1) 2
(2009); see Rule 12

- 102(A)(1) NMRA (providing that capital appeals “shall be t aken 3
to the Supreme Court”); 4

{2} WHEREAS, Defendant challenges only his conviction for unlawful taking of 5
a motor vehicle; 6

{3} WHEREAS, Defendant’s challenge is that the State failed to prove the 7
“definitive ownership” of the vehicle allegedly taken; 8

{4} WHEREAS, th is Court ha s considered the briefs and is otherwise fully 9
informed on the issues and applicable law; 10

{5} WHEREAS, this Court hereby exercises its discretion under Rule 12

- 11
405(B)(1)

- (2) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a 12
formal op inion; 13

{6} WHEREAS, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we “view the 14
evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable 15
inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict , ” State 16

v. Holt , 2016

- NMSC

- 011, ¶ 20, 368 P.3d 409 ( internal quotati on marks and citation 17
omitted); 183 {7} WHEREAS, the applicable statute prohibits a person from “taking any vehicle 1

. . . intentionally and without consent of the owner,” § 30

- 16D

- 1(A); 2

{8} WHEREAS, the State presented testimony that Antonio Armendariz (Victim) 3
owned the 1986 Chevy truck in question; 4

{9} WHEREAS, Defendant admitted that he did not own Victim’s truck and that 5
he took Victim’s truck without permission; 6

{10} WHEREAS, the jury instructions given to the jury required the State to prove 7
Defendant took the truck without the owner’s consent and did not require the State 8
to present evidence of the owner’s identity or proof of legal title, see UJI 14

- 1660 9
NMRA; 10

{11} WHEREAS, “[ J ]ury instructions become the law of the c ase against which 11
the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured.” State v. Arrendondo , 2012

- 12

NMSC

- 013, ¶ 18, 278 P.3d 517 ( internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 13

{12} WHEREAS, this Court determines the evidence was sufficient to support the 14
jury’s f inding that Defendant intentionally took Victim’s truck without consent; 15

{13} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s conviction for 16
unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is affirmed and that Defendant’s remaining 17

convictions are likewise affirmed

. 184 {14} IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL , Justice 3

WE CONCUR: 4

5 C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice 6

7 DAVID K. THOMSON , Justice 8

9 JULIE J. VARGAS , Justice 10

11 BRIANA H. ZAMORA , Justice 12