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: June 30, 201 5 4 N O. 32, 564 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 M A N U E L F E RN A N D E Z, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DI STRI CT COURT OF TAO S COUNTY 11 Sa ra h C . Ba ck

us , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Jane A. Ber

nstein, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 18 J. K . T heodos ia Johns on, A ssistant Appellate D efender 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 FR Y, Judge. 3 { 1} De fendant appeals from his convictio n for crim inal dam age to property valued 4 in e x c e s s o f $ 1 0 0 0 o n t h e g r o u n d o f i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e . H e a l so appe al s 5 fr om his se nte nc ing a s aha

bit ua l of fe nde r, a rg uin g th at the S ta te m ad e no pri m a fa ci e 6 s h o wi n g o f t h re e p ri o r u s ab l e f el o n i es . We a g re e t h at t h e e v i d en ce fo r D ef en d an t ’s 7 felony conviction wa s insu fficient and theref ore re verse. 8 BACKGRO UND 9 { 2} O n D ec em

be r 5, 201 0, D av id Satr

un, the vic tim , e nc ount er ed agr ee n D odge 10 Durango d riving erratically and aggressiv el y . T he driver of the D urango, later 11 ide nti fi ed

a s D ef en dant, pa ss ed

S atrun m or e than on ce be fo re ge tti ng o ut o f his 12 ve hic le to y el l a t S atrun and k ic k S atrun’ s do or . S atrun dr ove a w ay , but D ef en dant 13 followed and struck the back of Satrun’ s vehicle with his D urango. D efendant then 14 pul le d up a lon gsi de S atrun’ s do or , pin nin g it shu t. S atrun a ga in dro ve a wa y f ro m 15 D ef en dant t o aga s st at ion , w he re he c al le d th e pol ic e. A t the ti m e of the a cc ide nt, 16 Satr un w as dr ivi ng a

199 8 w hit e G MC pic kup. 17 { 3} De fendant wa s eventually arre sted and c harged with seven counts: aggravated 18 as sault

w ith a de ad ly

w ea pon (C ount s 1 and 2 ); c ri m ina l dam ag e to p ro pe rty in ex ce ss 19 of $10 00 ( Co unt

3) ; dr ivi ng w ithasus pe nde d li ce nse ( Co unt 4) ; le av ing the sc en e of2

1 an accident (C ount s 5 and 6); a n d co ncealing identit y (Count 7). H e w as convicted 2 on C ount s 3, 5, 6, a nd 7 , a nd sen te nc ed as a hab itu al of fe nde r on the gr ound

that he 3 had three usable prior felonies. De fendant appeals on two grounds: (1) the evidence 4 w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o pr ove the a m ount of pr ope rty da m ag e to Satr un’ s pi ck up, m ak ing 5 Co unt 3 un sus ta ina

ble ; and ( 2) the en ha nc ed se nte nc e w as not le ga l be ca use the S ta te 6 did not pr ovi de ad equa te pr oof tha t the out -o f- sta te fe lon y co nvi ct ionus ed dur ing 7 se nte nc ing w as a ct

ua lly his

. 8 DISC US SION 9 { 4} W e re vie wc la im s a s to the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce “ in the li ght m ost 10 favor ab le to the gui lty ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s an d r es olv ing a ll 11 conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” Sta te v . Cu nni ngha m , 2000-NMS C12 009, ¶ 26, 128 N. M. 711, 998 P. 2d 176. How ever, we m ust also d eterm ine whether 13 subs tanti al e vid en ce e xis ts “ an d supp orts a ve rd ic t of gui lt be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt 14 with respect to ever

y elem ent essential for conviction.” Sta te v . Ke nt , 2006-NMC A 15 134, ¶ 10, 140 N .M. 606, 145 P.3d 86. If the evidence presented “ m ust be but tressed 16 by sur m ise a nd c onj ec tur e, r athe r than logic al inf er en ce [, ] ” it w ill not

be suf fi ci en t t o 17 su pp or t a c on vi ct io n. Sta te v . V igi l , 1975 -N MS C- 013, ¶ 12, 87 N
. M. 345, 533 P
. 2d 18 57 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d) . I n m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n, we 19 do no t in any way

“ subs titute [our] j udgm ent for that of the fa ctfinder. ” Sta te v . M ora ,3

1 19 97 -NMSC -0 60 , ¶ 27 , 12 4 N.M. 3 46 , 95 0 P .2d 78 9, abro gat ion on o the r gr ound s 2 re co gni

ze d byKe rse

y v. H atc h, 201 0- N MS C- 020, ¶ 17, 148 N
. M. 381 , 237 P
. 3d 6 83. 3 { 5} To c on vi c t D e f

e nd a nt of f

e l on y c r i m i na l dam a ge t o pr op e rt y , t he S tate w as 4 req ui red to pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt b oththat D ef en da nt i nte nti ona lly 5 da m ag edth e p ro pe rty of an ot he r an d t ha t t he am ou nt of d am ag e ex ceed ed$1 00 0. See 6 N MS A 197 8, § 30 -1 5- 1 (196 3) ; U JI 14- 1501 N MR A
. I n a cc or da nc e w ithU JI 14- 7 1510 N MR

A , the “ am ount

of da m ag e” is de fi ne d a s: 8 the dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n th e pr ic e at w hic h the pr ope rty co uld or din ar ily 9 be bou ght

or sol d pr ior

to the da m ag e an d th e pr ic e at w hic h th e 10 pr ope rty

c oul d be boug ht or

sol d a ft er the da m ag e. I f the c ost

of r ep ai r 1 1 o f

t h e d a mag e dp r o p e rt y e x c e e d s t h e r e p l a c e men tc o s t o f t h e p r o p e rt y, 12 the va lue of

the da m ag ed

pr ope rty is the r ep la ce m en t c ost . 13 { 6} Du ri n g t h e t ri al , t h e S t at e o ff er ed s ub s t an t i al ev i d en ce o f d amag e t o Sa t ru n ’s 14 pic kup, inc lud ing se ve ra l phot ogr ap hs of the tr uc k ta ke n by

ashe ri ff ’ s de puty . S atrun 15 testified to further explain the dam age, cl aim ing th at his back bum per w as 16 “ destroy ed,” his tailgate m isaligned, and that De fendant’ s kick to his front door left 17 a se ve re de nt. H e adm itt ed tha t som e of the da m ag e pic tur ed

ha d be eninc ur

re d duri ng 18 pr ev iou s acci dents

. A ll tol d, S atrun te sti fi ed that the c ost

to re pa ir the da m ag e 19 D ef en dant i nf

lic te d w as about

$15 00 o r $160 0. 20 { 7} D ef

en dant d oe s n ot di sp ute tha t the c ost of r ep ai r w as ove r $100 0, but he 21 ar gue s th at

“ the m er e co st o f re pa ir

w as ins uf

fi ci en t—the St at e ha d to pr ove that the4

1 cost of replac emen t wa s not less th an the cost of repair. ” T he State did not offer 2 te sti m ony

a s to the c ondi tio n of the pic kup, its m ile ag e, or its lik el y r ep la ce m en t c ost , 3 ar gui ng tha t “ the re is no a bsol ute r equir em en t” that i t do so. 4 { 8} T he ins tr

uc tio n U JI 14- 1510 pr ovi de s tw o w ay s of de te rm ini ng the a m ount

of 5 dam age: “ dim inuti on in v alue” and “ cost of repair. ” Sta te v . B arr eras , 20 07 -NMCA6 06 7, ¶¶5-6 , 14 1 N.M. 65 3, 15 9 P.3d11 38 . The fi rs t m et ho d, “ di m in ut io n i n v al ue ,” 7 is th e “ be fo re[- ]and [-]afte r va lu e” of the pro pe rty. Id

. ¶ 5. T he se co nd m ethod, a t i ssu e 8 he re , is the “ co st of re pa ir

. ” In B arr eras , the defendant used a tire iron to dam age a 9 on e-year-o ld Cad il la c Esc al ad e th atwas p rev io us ly in g oo d c on di ti on . Id

. ¶ 2. T he 10 co st t o r ep ai r the da m ag e w as $51 00, but the S ta te of

fe re d no spe ci fi c ev ide nc e as to 11 re pla ce m en t c ost . Id

. ¶¶ 2, 8
. T he de fe ndant arg ue d onappe al that “ to p ro ve the 12 am ount of da m ag es unde r the se co nd m ethod, the S ta te m ust pr es en t e vid en ce of

both 13 the c ost

of r ep ai r an d th e co st o f re pla ce m en t so tha t the j ur y c anc om pa re the m

to 14 determ ine if the cost of repair exceeds the re placem ent cost.” Id

. ¶ 8. W e re

j ected that 1 5 ar gum e n t f

o r t w o r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t “ s e r i o u s l y p l a c e i n d i s p ute on 16 ap pe al ” w he the r the r ep la ce m en t c ost e xc ee de d th e co st o f repai r; a nd ( 2) the 17 “ av er ag e j ur or ” w oul d be a w ar e tha t the rep la cem ent c ost of the Ca dil la c w oul d be 18 hi gh er tha n th e co st of rep ai r. Id

. ¶ 9

. W e re as one d th at

“ if the c ost of r ep ai r doe s no t 19 exceed the replace m ent cost of the property , then the c ost of repair is the value used5

1 to determ ine the am ount of dam age.” Id

. ¶ 6. Becau s e t h e jurors “ would kno w that 2 suc h ahig h- en d sp ort ut ili ty ve hic le ha s a

r ep la ce m en t c ost

w el l ov er

$51 00[ , ] ” the 3 co st of r ep ai r was th e ap pr op ria te va lu e to us e. Id

. ¶ 9. 4 { 9} A s w e no te d in B arr eras , how ev er , “ [e ] vid en ce of r ep la ce m en t c ost

m ay be 5 necessary

wher e the vehicl e i s o l der and/or m ade by a lesser- nam ed m anufacturer ” 6 th an th e o ne -y ear- ol d C ad il la c atis su e in th atcas e. Id

. ¶ 9. As our Suprem e Court has 7 re ce ntl y

a ff irm ed , the a m ount

of da m ag e is “ the c ost

of r ep ai r or

r ep la ce m en t, 8 wh ic he ve r is less .” Sta te v . Co bre ra , 201 3- N MS C- 012, ¶ 8, 300 P. 3d 7 29 ( em

pha sis 9 ad de d)

. I n so m e ca se s, a s in B arr eras , the f ac ts m ay cl ea

rl y e sta bli sh tha t the 10 re pla ce m en t c ost

w oul d e xc ee d th e co st o f re pa ir a nd n o ad di ti ona l e vid en ce or 11 te sti m ony

m ay be r equir ed ; no ne the le ss, the r ep la ce m en t c ost r em ai ns p art of the 12 St at e’s bu rd en . Id

. ; B arr eras , 200 7- N MC A -0 67, ¶ 9. 13 { 10} Inthe pr es en t ca se , the “ av er ag e j ur or ” ha d no ba sis upo n w hic h to de te rm ine 14 tha t the re pla ce m en t cost of Satr un’ s pick up tru ck , w hic h wa s over ade ca de old

a nd 15 had noti ceable pre existing dam age, would be “ we ll over” the $ 1 5 0 0 co s t of repair

. 16 B arr eras , 2007-NMC A- 067, ¶ 9. The S tate observes that t h e jury wa s given 17 “ phot ogr ap hs o f [S atrun’ s] str ic ke n tr uc k” in ad dit ionto the te sti m ony re ga rd ing the 18 cost of repair, but the ph otog raphs included evid ence of unrelated cosm etic dam age, 19 dirt, an d ge ne ra l w ear. W ith out furthe r inf orm at ion re ga rd ing the pic kup, suc h a s it s6

1 m ile ag e, the phot ogr ap hs c oul d no t pr ovi de asuf fi ci en t ba sis f

or c onc lud ing that the 2 re pla ce m en t c ost

w oul d be gr eate r than the co st o f re pa ir

. E xa ct ly a s c ont em

pla te d in 3 B arr eras , thi s c as e re qui re d the St at e to subm it ev ide nc e as to suc h r ep la ce m en t c ost 4 so tha t the j ur

y c oul d r ea sona

bly de te rm ine w he the r it ex ce ed ed the c ost of r ep ai r or 5 not . 200 7- N MC A -0 67, ¶ 9. 6 { 11} The S tate su g g es ts that Def endant waived the issue of the pickup’s proper 7 va lua tio n w he n he f

ai le d to c ro ss- ex am ine the St at e’ s wi tne sse s onthe r ep la ce m en t 8 co st . B ecau se th is is no t an affi rm at iv e d efen se bu t ra th er a m at te r of th e St at e’s own 9 bur de n, D ef

en dant b or e no o bli ga tio n to of fe r or c ont es t e vid en ce that the S ta te it se lf 10 di d n ot pre se nt . Sta te v . M unoz , 199 8- N MS C- 041, ¶ 15, 126 N
. M. 371, 970 P. 2d 1 43. 11 Furthe rm or e, w ha te ve r his str at eg y in cr oss -e xa m ina tio n, D ef en da nt h as “ se ri ousl y 12 place[d] in disp ute o n appeal” that the pickup was worth the $1,500 cost of repair, 13 given its age, previous dam age, unkn own m ileage, and unk nown m echanical 14 co nd it io n. B arr eras , 20 07 -NMCA- 06 7, ¶ 9
. 15 { 12} T h i s c a s e i s t h e r e f o r e d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f

r o m B arr eras and, by refusing to offer 16 ev ide nc e re gard ing r ep la ce m en t c ost , the S ta te ha s f ai le d to m ee t its bur de n fo r fe lon y 17 pr op ert y

da m ag e b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. 18 { 13} In som e case s, “ appellate courts have the authority to rem and a case for entry 19 of j udgm ent on the lesser included offe nse and resentencing rather than r etrial w hen7

1 the e vid en ce doe s not suppor t the of fe nse f or w hic h th e de fe ndant w as c onvi ct ed but 2 does sup port a lesser included offense. ” State v. H aynie, 199 4- N MS C- 001, ¶ 4, 116 3 N. M. 746, 867 P. 2d 416. The “ direct re m and” rule does not appl y , how ever, in cases 4 in whi ch th e jury was no t in st ru ct ed on a le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se . Sta te v . V illa , 200 4- 5 NMSC -0 31 , ¶¶ 9, 1 2, 1 36 N.M. 36 7, 9 8 P .3d 10 17
. 6 { 14} He re, the j ury

wa s not in structed on lesser-included offens es , s u ch as 7 m isd em eanor

pr ope rty da m ag e am ount ing to le ss tha n $10 00 . W he n th e St at e onl y 8 instructs on the greater offense, we will not s ec ond-gu ess its “ all-or-nothing trial 9 strategy ,” id. ¶ 14, bec ause t o co n v i ct De fendant of an offe nse with which the j ury 10 was ne ve r pr es en te d wou ld de pr iv e hi m of no ti ce an d b e in co ns is te nt wit h o urlaw. 11 Sta te v . Sla de , 201 4- N MC A -0 88, ¶ 38, 331 P. 3d 930. T he re fo re , w e w ill not r em an d 12 fo r re se nte nc ing D ef

en dant fo r m isd em eanor pr ope rty da m ag e w he re the e vid en ce is 13 ins uf fi ci en t t o de m onstrate the r equis ite a m ount of da m ag es f

or af el ony c onvi ct ion

. 14 CON CLU SION 15 { 15} For the r ea sons state d a bove , w e re ve rs e D ef

en da nt’ s c onvi ct iona s to Co unt 16 3, f or c ri m ina l dam ag e to p ro pe rty va lue d ine xc es s of

$10 00 . B ecause a ll the 17 rem aining cou nts of which Defendant wa s convicted are m isdem eanors, the habitual 18 se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t i s n o l on ge r atis su e. See NMSA 1 97 8, § 31 -1 8- 17 (A) ( 2003 )8

1 (a ppl y ing to “ [a ] pe rs on c onvi ct ed of a nonc ap ita l f el ony ” w ho h as one or

m or e pr ior 2 felony conviction s). 3 { 16} IT IS SO ORDERED.
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 C Y N TH IAA . F R Y , Ju dg e
6 WE CO NCUR:
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 8 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 10 R OD ERIC K KEN N ED Y , Ju dg e