1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 

3 

4 

5 NO. S-1-SC-39189 

Filing Date: July 6, 2023

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

6 SERGIO Z. BOYLE, 

7 Defendant-Appellant.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY

9 Angie K. Schneider, District Judge

10 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

11 Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender

12 Santa Fe, NM

13 for Appellant

14 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

15 Leland M. Churan, Assistant Attorney General

16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellee

18 DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

19 VIGIL, Justice. 

20 {1} WHEREAS, this matter comes before the Court on the direct appeal of Sergio

21 Boyle (Defendant) from his convictions for first degree murder, NMSA 1978, § 30-

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

1 2-1(A)(1) (1994) (“a capital felony”), tampering with evidence, NMSA 1978, § 30-

2 22-5 (2003), and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, NMSA 1978, § 30-16D-1(A)(1) 

3 (2009);see Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA (providing that capital appeals “shall be taken 

4 to the Supreme Court”);

5 {2} WHEREAS, Defendant challenges only his conviction for unlawful taking of 

6 a motor vehicle;

7 {3} WHEREAS, Defendant’s challenge is that the State failed to prove the 

8 “definitive ownership” of the vehicle allegedly taken;

9 {4} WHEREAS, this Court has considered the briefs and is otherwise fully 

10 informed on the issues and applicable law;

11 {5} WHEREAS, this Court hereby exercises its discretion under Rule 12-

12 405(B)(1)-(2) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than a 

13 formal opinion;

14 {6} WHEREAS, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we “view the 

15 evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable 

16 inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict,” State 

17 v. Holt, 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 20, 368 P.3d 409 (internal quotation marks and citation 

18 omitted);
3

1 {7} WHEREAS, the applicable statute prohibits a person from “taking any vehicle 

2 . . . intentionally and without consent of the owner,” § 30-16D-1(A);

3 {8} WHEREAS, the State presented testimony that Antonio Armendariz (Victim) 

4 owned the 1986 Chevy truck in question;

5 {9} WHEREAS, Defendant admitted that he did not own Victim’s truck and that 

6 he took Victim’s truck without permission;

7 {10} WHEREAS, the jury instructions given to the jury required the State to prove 

8 Defendant took the truck without the owner’s consent and did not require the State 

9 to present evidence of the owner’s identity or proof of legal title, see UJI 14-1660 

10 NMRA;

11 {11} WHEREAS, “[J]ury instructions become the law of the case against which 

12 the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured.” State v. Arrendondo, 2012-

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

14 {12} WHEREAS, this Court determines the evidence was sufficient to support the 

15 jury’s finding that Defendant intentionally took Victim’s truck without consent;

16 {13} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s conviction for 

17 unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is affirmed and that Defendant’s remaining 

18 convictions are likewise affirmed.
4

1 {14} IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

4 WE CONCUR:

5

6 C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

7

8 DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

9

10 JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

11

12 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice