1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: D ec em

be r 29, 201 6 4 N O. 35, 006 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 JOSEP H MO NTO YA , ak a JOSEP H E. 9 M ON TO Y A , ak a JO SE P H E M ET ERIO 10 MONTO YA, ak a J OSE MONTOYA, 11 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA N M IGUEL CO UN TY 13 Ge ra ld E. Ba ca , D ist ri ctJu dg e 14 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 15 San ta Fe, NM 16 Eliza beth Ashton, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 17 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 18 for Appellee 19 L
. H el enBe nne tt 20 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 21 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} T his c as e tur

ns o n w he the r D ef

en dant’ s c onvi ct ionf

or his ro bbe ry of

the vic tim 4 he e ar lie r ro bbe d and kil le d c anstand g ive n th at the vic tim

w as a lr ea dy

de ad a t the 5 ti m e o f t h e sec on d ro bb ery. The q ue st io n p res en te d t o u s i s o ne of “ pe rs on ho od ,” 6 D ef en dant c ont en ds. H e as se rt s th at j ust a s on e cannot

kil l a pe rs on a lr ea dy

de ad , one 7 ca nnotr o b a p e r s o n a l r e a dy d e a d
. W e h o l d t h a t u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e, the 8 ro bber y st at ute w as pr ope rl y appl ie d, a nd D ef

en dant w as pr ope rl y

c onvi ct ed

of 9 r o b b e ry d e s p i t e th e p o s t h u mo u s
— b y s e v e r a l h o u r s
—n a tu r e o f t h e s e c o n dr o b b e ry. 10 BACKGRO UND 11 { 2} De fendant Joseph Montoy a, with the assistance o f o t h ers, robbed and then 12 killed Angel Arr oy o. D efendant then le ft the scene of these crim es. R eturning a few 13 hour s late r, D ef

en dant, a ga in w ith the a id o f oth er s, e m pti ed A rr oy o’ s po ck et

of a ny 14 rem aining cash, poured gasoli ne through out th e re sidence and on Arroy o’ s body , then 15 set the residence on fire . C onvi cted of m ultip le crim es and sentenced to 104 .5 y ears 16 of inc ar ce ratio n, D ef

en dant cha lle nge s the ap pli catio n of the ro bbe ry statut e w he n th e 17 robbery

com m enced and concluded on a person dead for several hours. He also raises 18 ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el be ca

use his a tto rn ey did not re que st an in str uc tio n 1 9 o n t h e f

ta s al e s s e r

i n c l u d e do f

f e n s e o f r o b b e ry.2

1 DISC US SION 2 P er son ho od 3 { 3} W e start w ith whether D efendant’ s convic t i o n for the second robbery wa s 4 la wfu l. We revi ew th is is su e d e n ov o, s in ce it in vo lv es st atut ory in te rp ret at io n. Sta te 5 v. D uhon , 2005 -N MC A -1 20, ¶ 10, 138 N
. M. 466 , 122 P
. 3d 5 0; see Sta te v . A lm anza r , 6 2014 -N MS C- 001, ¶

9, 316 P
. 3d 1 83. 7 { 4} N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 30 -1 6- 2 (197 3) , r ea ds: “ Ro bbe ry c onsi sts of

the the ft of 8 an yth in g of va lue f

ro m the pe rs on o f an oth er

or f ro m the im m ed ia te c ontro l of 9 another, by

use or threatened use of force or violence.” The j ury wa s instructed that 10 in o rd er

to fin d Defendan t gu ilty of r obbe ry , the S ta te w as r equir ed to pr ove 11 D ef en dant t ook ca sh fr om A rr oy o’ s pock et by f or ce or vio le nc e, int en din g to de pr ive 12 Arro y o o f th e cas h. Se e UJI 14-162 0 N MR A
. “ [R ] obbe ry

is dis tin ct

f ro m larc en y 13 because it requires, and is design ed to pun ish, the elem ent of force .” Sta te v . B ernal , 14 2006 -N MS C- 050, ¶

28, 140 N
. M. 644 , 146 P
. 3d 2 89. 15 { 5} D ef

en dant c ont en ds tha t the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to co nvict him of 16 ro bbe ry

a ft er he r et ur ne d to the sc en e of the kil lin g be ca use “ a ro bbe ry co nvi ct ionis 17 im pr op e r whe n t he rob be ry bo th co m

m en ces an d c on cl ud es on a de adpe rs on .” He 18 re lie s on langua ge in Ste phe nson v . Sta te , 29 N
. E
. 3d 1 11, 116 ( In d. 201 5) , that st at es , 19 “ [w ] hil e a ro bbe ry

c onvi ct ionm ay

not be pr ope r w he n a ro bbe ry both c om m en ce s and3

1 concludes on a dead person, the crim e is c omm itted when part of the robbery occurs 2 before the victim ’ s death and the other part occurs af ter the death. ” D efendant argues 3 t h a tju s ta s a t t e mp t i n g t o k i l l s o meo n e wh o i s a l r e a d y d e a di s al e g a l i mp o s s i b i l i t y, 4 “ one ca n n o tr o b ac o r

p s e . ” H e f

u rt h e r a r g u e s t h a tA rr o y o d i dn o t h a v e i m m e d i a te 5 control over the cash in his p ocket when A rroy o was a lready dead, as required under 6 Se ct ion30- 16- 2. A nd he ar gue s th at the L eg isl at

ur e did not int en d th e ro bbe ry

statut e 7 to apply t o c i r c um st a nc e s, su c h a s t ho se he r e , i n w hi c h t he vi c t i m w a s no long er a 8 “ pe rs on. ” D ef

en dant a sse rt s th at

“ [t ] he te m

por al a nd r el at ion al ga

p betw ee n the fi rs t 9 ro bbe ry

a nd s hoot ing a nd kil ling of A rr oy o, a nd the sub se que nt, se co nd the ft of 10 m one y

f ro m A rr oy o’ s body be fo re the ar son is sim ply too larg e, a nd w as br oke n by 11 [D efendant’ s] flight from the scene intending t o g o el sewher e. ” T he botto m line, 12 acco rd in g t o Def

en da nt , “ [p ]erso nh oo d c eas es up on th e d eat h o f th e in di vi du al .” He 13 ci te s art ic le s th at

m ed ic al ly

a nd p hil osop hic al ly

w ax on l if

e as f undam en ta l t o th e 14 te rm “pe rs on ,” as a te rm

th atceas es to ap pl y

up on de at h. Se e, e . g. , Jo hn D. Arras, Th e 15 Se ve re lyD em en te d, M ini m all y F unc tio nal P ati en t: A n E thi ca l A nal ys is , 36 JAGS 16 938, 940 (198 8) (ar guin g that patients who lack all funda m ental hum an capacities 1 7 h a v e c e a s e dt o b e p e r s o n s i n a n y m e a n i n g f u l s e n s e ) ; Ami r

Ha l e v y & B a r

u c h B r o d y, 18 B rai n D ea th: R ec onc ili ng D ef ini tio ns, Cr ite ria , and

T es ts , 119 Annals of Inter nal 19 Me d. 519 , 523 ( 1993 ) (n oti ng tha t w hil e the re a re m an y dif fe re nt v ie w s of4

1 pe rs onho od, a ll, e xc ep t those that i de nti fy pe rs on ho od w ithsim

ple bio log ic 2 functionin g, re quire cortical ac tivity ). 3 { 6} The a

pplication of a r obbery

statute to theft from a d ea d p er s on has been 4 ad dr es se d inse ve ra l ca se s. O ur S upr em e Co urt i n Sta te v . B are la , N o. 32, 506, 201 3 5 W L 1279111 , at *19-20 , dec
. (N .M. Sup. C t. Mar. 28, 2013) (non-precedential), 6 uphelda robbery

conviction “ wher e the killin g and the taking of the property are part 7 of the sam e tr an sa ct ionof

e ve nts [] ” an d a dopt ed

the f oll ow ing vie w , quo te d fr om 8 Ja m es v . Sta te , 618 S. E. 2d 13 3, 138 (Ga . C t. App. 2005). 9 A lth ough , a s an a bstra ct pr inc ipl e of law , one or din ar ily cannot be gui lty 10 of

r obbe ry if the vic tim

is a de ce as ed

pe rs on, thi s pr inc ipl e doe s no t 11 ap ply w he re a ro bbe ry an d ho m ic ide a re apart of the sam e tr an sa ct ion 12 an d are so i nte rw ove n w ith ea ch oth er as to be ins ep ar ab le
. If the takin g 13 wa s m ade possib le by an antecedent as s ault, the offe nse is robbery 14 re gard le ss o f w he the r the vic tim die d b efo re or af

te r the takin g of

the 1 5 p r o p e rt y. 16 B are la , 201 3 W L 127 9111 , a t *2 0 (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n 17 om it te d)
. B are la a lso r el ie d on P eo ple v . Na va re tte , 66 P. 3d 11 82, 1207 (Cal. 2003), 18 fo r the sim ilarl y

state d vi ewthat “ w hil e it m ay be tr ue that one cannot

r ob a pe rs on 19 w ho i s a lr ea dy

de ad w he n on e fi rs t ar

ri ve s on the sc en e, one c anc er ta inl y r ob a li vin g 20 person by

killing that person and then taking his or her property [. ] ” B are la , 2 0 1 3 WL 21 1279 111, at *20 (alteration, internal quotation m arks, and citation om itted).5

1 { 7} At leas t two les s- rece nt cas es cam e to th e sa m e o r si m il ar co nc lu si on . See , e.g ., 2 Smothers v. U

nited Sta tes , 403 A
. 2d 306, 313 n. 6 (D
. C. 1979 ) (“ It is se ttl ed la w in 3 thi s j ur isd ic tio n that a dea d per son can be a robb er y vic tim , a t l ea st whe re the takin g 4 an d th e de ath oc cur in close pr oxi m ity
. ”) ; Sta te v . Co e , 208 P
. 2d 8 63, 866 ( W as h. 5 1949 ) (holding th at a robbery conviction wa s appropriate when the def endant kill ed 6 the vic tim

in a ve hic le , the n to ok the bo dy fro m the ve hic le , a nd “ co nve y ed it a 7 dis tanc e fr om

the r oa d and t ook the pr ope rty f ro m the c lothin g” of

the vic ti m , a nd 8 statin g th at

it w as “ not ac as e w he re the onl y

a ct w as the takin g of

pr ope rty f ro m the 9 person of one deceased” but rather “ [t] he robbery com m enced with the first overt ac t 10 on the part of [the co-def endant] ”). 11 { 8} W e interpret S ection 30-16-2 to apply to the circum stances here and holdthat 12 De fendant wa s properly convicted und er S ection 30-16 -2 for the sec ond robb ery that 13 oc curr ed

a ft er the kil lin g. It

is re as ona

ble to co nc lud e that the se co nd r obbe ry a nd the 14 subs equent arson were “ clean-up” ac tivities d irectly connected with th e original 15 ro bbe ry an d kil lin g, an d the re fo re the se co nd ro bbe ry c anr at ion al ly

be li nke d to the 1 6 mur d e r

t h a te n ab l e dt h e r o b b e ry. 17 Ineff ective A ssistance 18 { 9} “No rmal l y, ac l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l i s e s t ab l i s h e db y a 19 showing of error by

counsel and prej udice resulting from the err or.” Sta te v . G roga n ,6

1 2007 -N MS C- 039, ¶ 11 , 1 42 N
. M. 107 , 163 P
. 3d 4 94. A n e rr or is fo und if

the 2 “ attorney ’ s conduct fell below that of a re as o n ably com petent attorney .” State v. 3 Baca , 199 7- N MS C- 059, ¶ 24, 124 N
. M. 333 , 950 P.2d 77 6. T he de fe ndant h as the 4 bu rd en to sh ow b ot h i nc om pe te nc e an d p reju di ce. Se e id. 5 { 10} D ef

en dant c ont en ds tha t his co unse l w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng to re que st the 6 district court to giv e a lesser included offense instructio n on “ theft.” De fendant does 7 not r ef er to the part ic ular statut e, but pr es um ab ly int en ds app lic at ion of N MS A 197 8, 8 Se ct ion30- 16- 1 ( 2006 ) (d ef ini ng “ larc en y ”)
. W e cannot a gr ee . Co unse l m ay

ha ve 9 consciou sly

determ ined that the better strategy wa s to defeat the second robbery 10 co nv ic ti on le av in g no st ep -d own ch arg e. Se e B ernal , 200 6- N MS C- 050, ¶ 35 ( statin g 11 that the defendant’ s claim ed err ors “ m ay im plicate tactical decisions m ade by counsel 12
. . . a nd are be st ev al ua te d du rin g habe as co rp us ”). Fu rth er, Defe nd an t h as no t s ho wn 13 pr ejud ic e. See G roga n , 200 7- N MS C- 039, ¶ 11; Sta te v . H

erre ra , 200 1- N MC A -0 73, 14 ¶ 36, 131 N .M. 22, 33 P .3d 22 ( requiring, for a prim a fa cie ca se, pr oof of both lack 15 of rea sonable com

petence and prej udice). 16 { 11} E ve n a ssu m ing that the le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse ha d be enr eque ste d, w e do n ot 17 hol d th at

the re ex ist ed

ar ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that, but f or c ouns el ’ s e rr or , the r es ult 18 wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t. See B ernal , 200 6- N MS C- 050, ¶ 32 ( “ W ithr eg ar d to the 19 pr ej udi ce pr ong, ge ne ra liz ed pr ej udi ce is ins uf

fi ci en t. I nst ea d, ade fe ndant m ust7

1 dem onstrate that couns el’ s errors wer e s o serious, such a fa ilure of the adversar ial 2 pr oc es s, that such er

ro rs unde rm ine j udi ci al c onf ide nc e in the a cc ur ac y

a nd r el ia bil ity 3 o f t h e o u t c o me . ” ( a l t e r a t i o n , i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n mark s , a n dc i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) )
. “A 4 defendant m

ust show a reasonable probabilit y that, bu t for counsel’ s unprofessio nal 5 error s, the result of the proceeding would have been differe nt.” Id

. ( int er na l qu otatio n 6 m arks and citation om itted). 7 { 12} D ef

en dant i s f

re e to pur sue his ine ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m in a h ab ea s c or pus 8 pr oc eed in g. Se e G roga n , 200 7- N MS C- 039, ¶ 9; H erre ra , 200 1- N MC A -0 73, ¶ 37. 9 CON CLU SION 10 { 13} W e af

fi rm D ef en dant’ s se co nd r obbe ry

c onvi ct ion
. 11 { 14} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 14 WE CO NCUR:
15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e
17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 18 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e