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: O ct obe r 25, 201 7 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 4773 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 PHIL LIP S IMMO NS , 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 Be nj am in C ha ve z, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Maris V eidem anis, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 17 Nina L alevic, Assistant Appellate D efender 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Appe llant17 W e not e tha t a lth oughthe j ur y c le ar ly f ound D ef en da nt guil ty of tw o c ount s 1 18 of CSP II- felony

and one count o f CS P II -forc e/coerc ion and the district court 19 recognized those verdicts, the j udgm ent errone o u s l y states that Def

endant was 20 co nvi ct ed

of thr ee c ount s of

CS P II -f or ce /c oe rc ion

. 1 OPIN ION 2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} De fendant Phillip Simm ons was convicted by a j ury of t wo coun ts of crim inal 4 sexual penetration in th e second degree ( in the comm i s s i o n of a fe lony ) (C SP I I5 fe lon y ) in v iol at ionof N MS A 19 78, S ec tio n 30 -9 -1 1( E )( 5) ( 2009 ), one c ount of 6 cr im ina l se xua l pe ne tr at ionin the se co nd d eg re e (b y f or ce or c oe rc ion , c hil d 13 -1 8) 7 (C SP I I- fo rc e/ co er ci on) in vio la tio n of S ec tio n 30 -9- 11( E )( 1) , one c ount of 8 kidna ppi ng i n th e fi rs t de gr ee in vio la tio n of NM SA 1978 , Se ct ion30- 4- 1 ( 2003 ), one 9 co unt of dis tr ibu tio n of

ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce to a m ino r in the se co nd d eg re e in 10 vio la tio n of

N MS A 1978 , Se ct ion 30- 31- 21 (1 987) , an d on e co unt of c ontri but ing to 11 the delinqu ency

of a m inor in vio lation of NMSA1978 , S ection 30-6-3 (199 0). 1 12 { 2} On appeal, De fendant argues t hat (1) th e d istrict court failed to instruct the jury 1 3 o n a r e qu i r e d e l e m e n t f o r t h e C S P I I- fe lon y co nvi ct ion s; ( 2) the re w as ins uf fi ci en t 14 ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

the j ur y ’ s gu ilty ve rd ic ts; a nd ( 3) thi s C ourt m ust va cate the 15 kidna ppi ng, dis tr ibu tio n of a contro lle d subst an ce to a m ino r, or co ntr ibu tin g to the 16 de lin que nc y

of am ino r co nvi ct ion s, or

e lse re duc e the CS P II -f

el ony c onvi ct ion s to2

1 CS P I V b ec au s e a l l o wi n g al l co n v i ct i o n s t o s t an d wo u l d v i o l at e d o ub l e je o p ar d y. W e 2 af fi rm in part a nd r em an d inor de r to v ac at e D ef en da nt’ s C SP I I- fe lon y

c onvi ct ion s. 3 BACKGRO UND 4 { 3} On an evening in July 2010 , Victim , a fifteen- y ear- old boy , we nt to a concert 5 w ithhis f

am ily

. A ft er

the c onc er

t, V ic tim planne d on atte ndi ng a party w ithhis f am ily 6 an d go t a

r ide w ithhis c ousi n and h is c ousi n’ s f ri en d. Whil e in th e car, Victi m got 7 int o an ar gum en t w ithhis c ousi n, a t w hic h po int his c ousi n’ s f

ri en d ki ck ed

V ic tim out 8 of the car

in downtown Albuquerque near the A lvarado Tr ansportatio n Center ( AT C). 9 V ic tim , w an tin g to ge t ho m e, tr ie d to ge t a r ide hom e fr om

A T C b ut w as ini tia lly 1 0 u n s u c c e s s f

u l

. A f t e r s o me t i me , D e f

e n d a n tp u l l e d up t o V i c t i m an do f f e r e dV i c t i m a 11 ri de hom e. D ef

en da nt t ol d Vict im he ne ed ed to do s om ethin g f

ir st and dro ve to a 12 sa lon

. A ft er

goi ng t o th e sa lon , D ef

en da nt dro ve V ic tim

to D ef en da nt’ s a

pa rtm en t. 13 { 4} Once at the apartm ent, D efen dant told Vic tim he had “ to get som ething real 14 qui ck , ” an d the y en te re d the ap ar tm en t. V ic tim te sti fi ed tha t he fe lt “ a little bit f or ce d” 1 5 t o e n t e r

t h e ap a rt m e n ta n db e l i e v e dh e w a s t h r e a t e n e d

. O n c e i n s i d e , D e f en da nt 16 of fe re d V ic tim

abe er , a s w el l a s “ [c ] ra ck , we ed , [ an d] c oke

. ” V ic tim , f ee lin g 17 pr es sur ed , a cc ep te d abe er a nd co ca ine , w hic h m ad e him fe el “ w ooz y . ” A t tha t po int , 18 D ef en dant b eg antou ch ing V ic tim an d su ck ed V ic tim ’ s pe nis

. V ic tim

te sti fi ed that he 19 w as “ w or

ri ed ab out ge tti ng hom e” an d tha t the e nc ount er “ m ad e [h im ] f

ee l .

. . gr oss ”3

1 an d “ [a ] sham ed

of [ him se lf ]

. ” T he re a f

t e r , D e f e n d an t s u c k e d V i c t i m ’ s pe nis a ga in, a nd 2 they sm oked m ore cocaine. Vi ct i m asked to go hom e, but Defe ndant to ld him that 3 D ef en dant w oul d take V ic tim hom e “ in the m or

nin g[

. ] ” V ic tim

pr ote ste d, te lli ng 4 D ef en dant tha t he ha d to go s ee his pr oba tion of fi ce r be ca

use V ic tim

w as on 5 probation . D efendant then asked for anal sex, and Victim com plied because he wa s 6 afra id that if he did not, he would be anally penetrated. Victim testifie d t h at 7 D ef en dant w as larg er

than hi m , a nd h e w as sc ar ed

. 8 { 5} D ef

en da nt e ve ntual ly

too k V ic tim

hom e ar ound

7:0 0 a

. m . Whe n D ef

en dant 9 dr oppe d Vi ct im of

f, D ef en da nt pro vid ed his na m e an d ph one num be r to V ic tim , tol d 10 V ic tim

to ca ll him , a nd m ad e pr om ise s of m one y an d ac ce ss to his c ar . Whe n V ic tim 11 ar ri ve d ho m e he c ri ed , too k m ult ip le sho w er s, a nd t old his m oth er , aunt , a nd 12 gr an dm ot he r w ha t ha d ha ppe ne d. V ic tim

w as e xa m ine d by

ase xua l a ssa

ult nur se 13 ex am ine r (S A

N E ), w ho t es tif

ie d th at V ic tim dis cl ose d th at

he f el t c oe rc ed

to ha ve 14 anal sex with D efendant and reported b eing “ woken u p with h is genitals being su cked 1 5 o n [. ]” 16 { 6} Victim

identified Def

endant as t he perpetrator in a phot o array , gave the police 17 a fa irly

accur ate description of Def en d an t’ s apartm ent, and ident ified De fendant as 18 the pe rp etrator

a t tri al

. A fo re nsi c ex am ine r te sti fi ed a t tri al that sh e ide nti fi ed sa liv a 19 tha t c ont ai ne d D ef

en da nt’ s D N A on the ins ide of V ic tim ’ s bo xe r shor

ts.4

1 { 7} T he j ur

y f ound D ef en da nt g uil ty

of tw o c ount s of CS P II -f

el ony , one co unt

of 2 CSP II- force/c oercion, one c ount of kidnapp ing, one count of dis tributio n of a 3 co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e to a m ino r, an d one co unt of co ntr ibu tin g to the de lin que nc y of 4 a m ino r. Fo r the CS P II -f el ony co unt s, the j ur

y w as ins tr

uc te d tha t the St at e must 5 pr ove that D ef

en da nt ca use d V ic tim

to en ga ge in fe llatio a nd ana l i nte rc our se dur ing 6 the c om

m iss ionof

kidna ppi ng o r dis tr ibu tio n of

ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce to a m ino r or 7 co ntr ibu tin g to the de lin que nc y of am ino r. H ow ev er , the j ur y w as not aske d to 8 ide nti fy

w hic h f el ony it r el ie d up on i n r ea ch ing it s ve rd ic ts o n th e CS P II -f el ony 9 co unt s. D ef

en dant w as ult im at el y

se nte nc ed

to tw en ty -s ev en y ears in pr iso n, w ith 1 0 n i n e y e a r s o f t h e s e n t e n c e s u s p e n d e d , f o r a t o t a l s e n t e n c e o f e i g h t e e n y e a r s . T his 11 ap pe al f

oll ow ed

. 12 DISC US SION 13 I. Jury Instruc tions—CS P II-f elony 14 { 8} De fendant argues that the district court failed to instruct the jury that in order 15 to f ind D ef en da nt g uil ty

of the CSP II-fe lon y

c ount s, it ha d to f ind that the re w as a 16 caus a l l i nk be t w e e n t he f e l on y c om

m i t t e d a nd t he C S P

. D e f

e nd a nt a dm i t s that trial 17 co unse l di d no t r eque st tha t an in str uc tion be gi ven onthe c au sa l l ink be tw ee n th e 18 CS P II -f

el ony c harg es a nd the a sso ci at ed f el oni es .5

1 { 9} Whe n a party fa ils to obj ec t to ate nde re d j ur y ins tr uc tio n, w e re vie wthe iss ue 2 fo r fu nd am en ta l er ro r. Se e Sta te v . B en all y , 200 1- N MS C- 033, ¶

12, 131 N

. M. 258 , 3 34 P.3d 1134 . F undam ental err or “ onlyapplies in exception al circ um stances when 4 gui lt is s o doub tf

ul tha t i t w oul d sh oc k th e j udi ci al c onsc ie nc e to a llo wthe c onvi ct ion 5 to stand.” State v. B aca , 199 7- N MS C- 045, ¶ 41, 124 N .M. 55, 9 46 P

. 2d 1 066, 6 overruled on other gr ound s by State v. B elanger , 200 9- N MS C- 025, 146 N

. M. 357 , 7 21 0 P .3d 78 3. 8 { 10} Insup port of

his pos iti o nth at

f un d am e n t a l e r

r o r o c c ur r e d , D ef en da nt h igh lig hts 9 St a t e v . St e v e ns , 2 0 1 4 -N MSC- 011, 323 P.3d 901 , arguing when charging CSP II

10 fe lon y , the a sso ci at ed f el ony “ m ust be af el ony that is co m

m itt ed ag ai nst

the vic tim 11 of, and that assists in the accom plish m ent of, sexual penetra tion p erpetra ted by force 12 or co er ci on or ag ai nst a vic tim w ho, by ag e or oth er statut or y f ac tor , ga ve no l aw fu l 13 consent.” Id

. ¶ 39. A ccording to De fendant, the State never argued and the j ury

never 14 found a “ n ex u s ” betwe en the associated felony , i. e. , distribution of a c ontrolled 15 subs tance to a m inor, kidnappin g, and/or contributin g to the delinqu ency of a m inor, 16 on the one ha nd, an d the tw o co unt s of CS P II -f el ony , on the oth er

hand. D ef

en dant 17 ar gue s th at

the j ur y sho uld ha ve be ena ske d to co nsi de r the ca usa l link be tw ee n th e 18 as soc ia te d f

el ony a nd the CS P w he n r en de ri ng it s ver dic t onCS P II -f el ony , a nd6

1 be ca use t he j ur

y ne ve r w as ins tr

uc te d to f

ind that the f

el ony a ssi ste d inthe 2 accom plish m ent of the CSP , ther e w as fundam ental err or. 3 { 11} In St e ve ns , our S uprem e Court considered the adequacy of a given CSP II4 felony j ury instruction and whether the inadequacies in the ins truction cons tituted 5 fu nd am en ta l er ro r. Id

. ¶¶ 1- 3. T he de fe ndant i n Ste ve ns w as c ha rg ed w ithtw o c ount s 6 of C S P

- I I f

e l on y , w i t h t he a ss oc i a t e d f e l on y b e i ng d i str i bu t i ono f

ac on trolled 7 subs tanc e to a m ino r, a ft er the de fe ndant p ro vid ed he r m ino r daught er

w ith 8 m et h amp h et amin e a n dt o l dh erd au g h t ert o p er f o r m o r a l s ex o n t h e d ef en d an t ’s 9 bo y fri en d o n t wo o ccas io ns . Id

. ¶¶ 4- 6. T he de fe ndant arg ue d th at he r “ co nvi ct ion s 10 for CS P II -felony

resulted from fundam ental error because the j ury wa s not in structed 11 tha t the [p ro se cu tio n] ha d to pr ove tha t the se xua l ac tiv ity oc curr ing dur in g t he 12 com m issio n of a felony wa s otherwise cr im inal[.] ” Id

. ¶ 12 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 13 om itt ed ). T he a t- iss ue ins tr u c t ionr equir ed , in re le va nt p ar t, that the pr ose cu tio n pr ove 14 (1 ) “ [t ] he de fe ndant cause d [he r] daught er to eng ag e in f el la tio on [ the de fe ndant’ s] 15 boy fr ie nd[ , ] ” an d ( 2) “ [t ] he de fe ndant co mm itte d th e ac t duri ng the c om m iss ionof 16 distribu tion o f a c ontrolled s ubstance to a m inor[.] ” Id

. ¶ 13 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 17 om itt ed ). O ur

S upr em e Co urt ul tim at el y he ld tha t “ w he n a CS P II c ha rg e is b as ed on 18 the c om

m iss ionof

a fe lon y , it m

ust be a fe lon y

that i s c om

m itt ed a ga ins t the vic tim 19 of, and that assis ts in the accom plish m ent of, sexual penetra tion perpetrated by force7

1 or c oe rc ion or ag ai nst a vic tim w ho, by ag e or oth er sta tut or y f ac tor , ga ve no l aw fu l 2 consent.” Id

. ¶ 39. T he Ste ve ns Court concluded, however, tha t al t houg h the jury 3 ins tr uc tio n w as de fi ci en t, the e rr or w as unp re se rv ed

a nd “ did not ri se to the le ve l of 4 fundam ental er ror. ” Id

. ¶¶ 42- 43, 46. T he Co urt no te d th at in co nvi ct ing the 5 de fe ndant, the j ur

y ne ces sari ly

de te rm ine d th at

the de fe ndant c au se d he r boy fr ie nd 6 to sex ua ll y

pe ne tra te he r da ug ht er dur in g t he co m m is si on of a fel on y . Id

. ¶ 43. 7 A ddi tio na lly , the Co urt looke d to te sti m ony fr om the de fe ndant’ s da ught er that sh e 8 acquiesced t o the defendant’ s request after she wa s injec ted with m etham phetam ine. 9 Id

. ¶ 45. T hus , t h e C o u rtd i d“ n o tc o n s i d e r g u i l tt o b e s o d o ub t f

u l t h a tac o n v i c t i on 10 w oul d sh oc k th e j udi ci al c onsc ie nc e” a nd a ff irm ed the de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion s. Id

. 11 ¶¶ 4 5, 5 8. 12 { 12} Inthi s c as e, a s in Ste ve ns , ther e is no fundamen tal err or. H ere, the j ury 13 instruc t i on s onC S P

- I I f e l on y s t a t e d, i n r e l e vant

p a rt , t hatt he S t a t e m

us tp r ove: 14 (1 ) D ef

enda nt cau se d V ic tim

to en ga ge in fe llatio a nd ana l i nte rc our se , a nd 15 (2 ) D ef

en da nt c om

m itt ed the a ct s duri ng the c om m iss ionof ki dnappi ng o r 16 distribu tion o f a c ontrolled subs tance to a m inor or contribut ing to the delinqu ency 17 of a m ino r. T he se ins tr uc tio ns ar e sim ilar to the ins tr uc tio n in Ste ve ns in tha t the y did 18 not ins tr uc t the j ur y to fi nd tha t the as soc ia te d fe lon y m ust be “ co m

m itt ed a ga ins t the 19 vi ct im of[ ] an d . . . ass is t[] in th e acc om pl is hm en t o f” t he CSP. Id

. ¶ 39 . But, also as8

1 in Ste ve ns , th is de fic ie nc y do es no t r i s e to th e le ve l o f fu nd am en ta l er ro r. Se e id. 2 ¶¶ 42- 43, 46. H er e, a re as ona ble j ur or w oul d no t be c onf

use d by the ins tr uc tio n, a nd 3 the c onne ct ion betw ee n th e as soc ia te d f el oni es a nd the a ct s of

CS P is s o r ea dil y 4 apparent that the CSP II- felony convictio ns do not sho ck the j udicial conscience. I n 5 this case, the a sso ci ated felonies, i. e. , kidnapping , distribution of a c ontrolled 6 subs tanc e to a

m ino r, a nd c ontrib ut ing to the de lin que nc y of am ino r, w er e al l 7 co m m itt ed a ga ins t V ic tim , a s e vid en ce d by the gui lty

ve rd ic ts f

or tho se f el oni es . 8 A ddi tio na lly , the re c anbe no d oubt tha t D ef en da nt w as a ssi ste d inc ar ry ing out the 9 CS Ps a ga ins t V ic tim

by the c om m iss ionof

the a sso ci at ed

f el oni es . 10 II. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 11 { 13} D ef

enda nt a rg ue s th at

the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s 12 convictio ns for kidnapp ing, distribu tion of a controlled subs tance to a m inor, CS P II , 13 an d co ntr ibu tin g to the de lin que nc y of am ino r. “ Inr ev ie w ing the suf fi ci en cy of the 14 ev ide nc e, [ the a

ppe llate c ourts] m

ust vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to 15 the gui lty

ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ces a nd r es olv ing a ll co nf lic ts i n 16 the evidence in favor of the verdict. ” Sta te v . Cu nni ngha m , 2000 -N MS C- 009, ¶ 26, 17 128 N

. M. 711 , 9 98 P.2 d 176. “ T he r el ev an t qu es tio n is w he the r, a ft er vie w ing the 18 ev ide nc e in the lig ht m ost f av or ab le to the pr ose cu tio n, a ny r at ion al tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d 19 have fo und th e essential elem ents of the crim e bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Id

.9

1 (alteration, em

phasis, inte rn al quotatio n m arks, and citation om itted). F urther, 2 “ [c] ontrary

evidence suppo rting acquittal do es not provi de a basis for r eversal 3 because the j ury

is free to rejec t [t h e d ] efendant’ s version of the facts[, ] ” State v. 4 R ojo , 199 9- N MS C- 001, ¶ 19, 126 N

. M. 438 , 971 P

. 2d 8 29, a nd w e de fe r to the f ac t5 fi nde r “ w he n it w ei ghs the cr ed ibi lity of w itn es se s and r es olv es c onf lic ts i n w itn es s 6 testim ony .” Sta te v . Salas , 199 9- N MC A -0 99, ¶ 13, 127 N

. M. 686 , 986 P

. 2d 4 82. 7 A . Distr ibution of a Cont r ol l e d S u bstance to a Minor, CS P II, and 8 C on tr ib ut in g t o t he D el in qu en cy of a M in or 9 { 14} D ef

en da nt’ s ar gum en t re gard ing the dis tr ibu tio n of ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce to 10 a m in orco nv ic ti on is th at , al th ou gh Vict im te st ifi edhe was o ffer edva rio us dru gs , a 11 dr ug t es t w as not

pe rf orm ed , a nd thus the e vid en ce is ins uf fi ci en t. H is arg um en t 12 ag ai ns t the thr ee CS P II c onvi ct ion s is that V ic tim ’ s te sti m ony w as “ al m ost 13 nons en sic al

. ” A nd D ef en da nt’ s arg um en t a ga ins t c ontri but ing to the de lin que nc y of 14 a m ino r is tha t the re w as no e vid en ce that D ef en da nt g av e V ic tim

a lc ohol or 15 co ntr oll ed

sub stanc es . W e re

j ec t al l of the se a rg um en ts b ec au se the y r eque st tha t this 16 Co urt us ur

p th e ro le of

the j ur y a s f ac t- fi nd er an d supplant the j ur y ’ s vi ewof

the 17 ev ide nc e w ithour

ow n. 18 { 15} A t tri al , V ic tim te sti fi ed that D ef en da nt p ro vid ed

him w ith dr ugs an d a lc ohol 19 an d th at

the re w er e thr ee se xua l e nc ount er s. V ic tim ide nti fi ed

D ef en da nt a s th e 20 pe rp etrator at tr ia l, an d a fo re nsi c ex am ine r te sti fi ed at tr ia l tha t sh e ide nti fi ed sa liv a10

1 tha t c ont ai ne d D ef

en da nt’ s D N A on the ins ide of V ic tim ’ s bo xe r sho rts . Se e id. 2 Si m ply be ca use the ev ide nc e pr es en te d at tri al c oul d have be enbol ste re d by adr ug 3 test or clear er testim ony does not m ean that there wa s insufficient evidence to convi ct 4 Defen da nt of h is cri m es . Se e R ojo , 19 99 -NMSC -0 01 , ¶ 19 . Giv en th e te st im on y , we 5 hol d th er e w as suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to upho ld D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s f

or dis tr ibu tio n 6 of ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce to a m ino r, CS P II , a nd c ontri but ing to the de lin que nc y of 7 a m in or . 8 B. Kidnapp ing 9 { 16} D ef

en da nt arg ue s th at

the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce of

kidna ppi ng b ec au se 10 the V ic tim

w ill ing ly en te re d De fe ndant’ s ca r an d that , af te r dr ivi ng to th e sa lona nd 11 De fendant’ s apartm ent, “ a savvy boy like [V ictim ] would have begun to suspect that 12 the ride hom e w as not goi ng to h appen any tim e soon.” D efendant argues th at there 1 3 wa s n o k i d n ap p i n g b y d ec ep t i o n b ec au s e Vi ct i m we n tv o l u n t ar i l y i n t o De fe n d an t ’s 14 ap ar tm en t, a nd V ic tim

ne ve r te sti fi ed

that he w as phy sic al ly

r es tr ai ne d by

D ef en dant. 15 D ef en dant ar gue s that

it is unc le ar a t w ha t po int

the phy sic al a sso ci at ionbe tw ee n hi m 16 an d V ic tim

w as no l onge r vol unt ar

y , a nd thus it w as unr ea son ab le fo r the j ur y to 17 co nvi ct

D ef en da nt o f kidna

ppi ng. 18 { 17} W e ar e unpersuaded. T o supp ort a conviction for kidn apping , the j ury 19 ins tr ucti on req uire d pr oof

, in re le va nt p ar

t, that D ef

en da nt “ too k or

r es tr ai ne d or11

1 confined or transported [V ictim ] by force or intim idation or deception[, and] intended 2 to hol d [Vic tim ] against [Victim ’ s] will to inflict death, phy sical injury or a sexual 3 of f e ns e o n [ V i c tim .] ” See § 30 -4 -1 (A )( 4) ( “ K idn ap pin g is the unl aw fu l t ak ing , 4 re str ai nin g, tr an spor

tin g or c onf ini ng of ape rs on, by

f or ce , int im ida tio n or

de ce pti on, 5 with intent . .

. to inflict death, phy sical injury or a sexual offe nse on the victim .” ). 6 { 18} K idn ap pin g by

de ce pti on “ can oc cur w he n an a sso ci at ion[ be tw ee n avic tim 7 and a defendant] begins volu ntarily but the defendant’ s actual p urpose is other than 8 the reason the victim v o l u ntarily associated with the defendant.” Sta te v . J ac obs , 9 2000 -N MS C- 026, ¶

24, 129 N

. M. 448 , 10 P.3d 127 ; se e Sta te v . L agun a , 199 9- 10 N MC A -1 52, ¶

¶ 2, 12, 17, 128 N

. M. 345 , 992 P

. 2d 8 96 ( de sc ri bing kidna ppi ng b y 11 de ce pti on w he re the vic tim w as of fe re d ar ide a nd the de fe ndant “ co nc ea l[ ed his ] 12 in te nt of e xp lo rin g s ex ua l i nv ol ve m en t wi th [th e v ic ti m ]”). 13 { 19} H er e, V ic tim

te sti fi ed that he w as le d to be lie ve tha t D ef en da nt w as goi ng t o 14 giv e him

ar ide hom e, e ve n th oughD ef en da nt m ad e tw o st ops. O nc e at the apa rtm en t, 15 V ic tim

te sti fi ed that he f el t “ a little bit fo rc ed ” to ent er the ap ar tm en t and b el ie ve d he 16 w as thr eate ne d. T he j ur y co uld ha ve re as ona

bly fo und tha t V ic tim ’ s as soc ia tio n w ith 1 7 D e f e n d a n tw a s b a s e do n ad e c e p t i o n w h e n D e f e n d a n t( 1 ) l i e db y o f

f e r i n g V i c t i m a 18 ri de hom e w itha nothe r int en t i n m ind , ( 2) li ed to V ic tim w he n he sa id he w oul d dr ive 19 V ic tim

hom e af te r sto ppi ng a t the sa lon , or ( 3) li ed to V ic tim

w he n he sa id h e w oul d12

1 d ri v e V i ct i m

h o m e a ft ers t o p p i n g at t h e ap ar t m en t“ t o g et s o m et h i n g re a l qu i ck [. ]” 2 Additionally , a s noted byt h e St ate, the j ury could have reasonably

found that 3 De fendant used inti m idation as p art of the kidn apping as evidenced by the phy sical 4 dis pari tie s be tw ee n D ef en da nt and V ic tim , V ic tim ’s t estim ony that D ef en da nt t old 5 him to go i nto the apartm en t, a nd V ic tim ’ s te sti m ony that he f el t f or ce d. 6 { 20} W e ar e al so unpe rs ua de d by D ef en da nt’ s arg um en t that “ a sa vvy boy li ke 7 [V ic tim ] w oul d have be gun to susp ec t tha t the ri de hom e w as not goi ng t o ha

ppe n any 8 tim e soon.” A s with his sufficiency of the evidence ar gum ents r eg ardi ng his other 9 co nvi ct ion s, D ef

en da nt i s e sse nti al ly

a ski ng this Co urt t o r e- w ei gh the e vid en ce a nd 10 m ak e al te rn at ive de te rm ina tio ns ab out V ic tim ’ s cr ed ibi lity an d w ha t V ic tim sho uld 11 ha ve be lie ve d. A s we ha ve sta te d, w e def er to the f ac t- fi nde r re ga rd ing suc h is sue s. 12 Se e Salas , 199 9- NMCA-0 99, ¶ 13. A nd w e do “ not

r e- w ei gh the e vid en ce to 13 determ ine if there w as an other hy poth esis that would sup port inno cence[ .] ” State v. 14 G arc ia , 20 05 -NMSC -0 17 , ¶ 12 , 13 8 N.M. 1 , 11 6 P .3d 72

. 15 III. Doub le Jeopardy 16 { 21} D ef

en da nt arg ue s onappe al tha t, w ith re spe ct to e ac h of the tw o C SP I I- fe lon y 17 co nvi ct ion s, thi s C ourt o n do ubl e j eo pardy gr ound s m

ust va cate e ith er

the 18 kidna ppi ng, dis tr ibu tio n of a co ntr oll ed sub stanc e to a

m ino r, or c ontri but ing to the 19 de lin quency

of am ino r co nvi ct ion s. D ef en da nt c om

pa re s C SP I I- fe lon y

to fe lon y16 CS P IVr equir es that a de fe ndant b e gui lty

of se xua l pe ne tr at ionof

ac hil d 2 17 thirteen to sixt een b y

a person who is at lea st eighteen y ears old and at least four y ears 18 older than the victim , and in this case, the j ury wa s instructed as to CS P IVas a lesser 19 included o ffense of CSP II- felony . S ection 30-9-11(G)(1). 13 1 m ur de r, arg ui ng tha t C SP I I- fe lon y is a co m poun d c ri m e tha t r equir es af ind ing of 2 CS P an d the as soc ia te d fe lon y an d tha t the as soc ia te d fe lon y is thu s su bsum ed w ith in 3 th e CSP II-fe lo ny. See State v. Frazier , 200 7- N MS C- 032, ¶ 1, 142 N .M. 120 , 164 4 P

. 3 d1 ( h o l d i n g un d e r

d o ub l e je o p a r d y p r i n c i p l e s t h a t“ t h e p r e d i c a t e f e l o n y i s a l w a ys 5 subs um ed

int o af el ony m ur de r co nvi ct ion , a nd n o de fe ndant c an be c onv ic te d of 6 both” ); Sta te v . T

se thl ik ai , 1 9 8 9

- N M C A

- 1 0 7 , ¶ 8 , 1 0 9 N

. M

. 3 7 1 , 7 8 5 P

. 2d 2 82 7 (n oti ng tha t C SP I I- fe lon y is a co m poun d c ri m e)

. D ef

en da nt arg ue s inhis br ie f in 8 ch ie f tha t ki dna

ppi ng “ is the m ost

li ke ly cr im e to be vio la tiv e of doub le j eo pa rdy ” an d 9 t h u s s u g g e s t s t h a tt h e k i d n ap p i n g c o n v i c t i o n i s “s ub s u med i n t o t h e C S P I I [

- f e l o n y] 10 co nvi ct ion s” a nd m

ust be va cate d. H ow ev er , in his r ep ly br ie f, D ef

en da nt a ppe ar s to 11 ch an ge his pos iti on, sug ge sti ng tha t “ the pr oper rem edy in thi s c as e w oul d be to 12 reduce the CS P II to a CSP IV because it is im p o s s i b l e to kno w upon which 2 13 al te rn at ive [ as soc ia te d fel ony ] the j ur y r el ie d. ” A nd D ef

en da nt r eque sts that “ thi s 14 Co urt vac at e the CS P II a nd e nte r the le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse [ of CS P IV ] that i s no t 15 ba se d u po n a fin di ng th atvi ol at es do ub le jeop ard y .”14

1 { 22} Init s answ er

br ie f, the S ta te a gr ee s tha t a co nvi ct ionm ust be va cate d. Bu t the 2 St at e ar gue s th at

the c onvi ct ionf

or c ontri but ing to the de li nq ue ncy of am ino r, the 3 lesser of the three predicate f elonies, should be vacated bec ause, per Frazier , “ if the 4 facts support m

ultip le charges of a particular felony which can be sustain ed under a 5 uni t[ ] of

[] pr ose cu tio n ana ly sis , the n th e [p ro se cu tio n] is fr ee to use one of tho se 6 charges as the pre dicate fe lonyand obtain sep arate conviction s for t h e other 7 c h a r g e s . ” 2 0 0 7

- N M S C

- 0 3 2 , ¶ 2 7

. A d d i t i o n a l l y, t h e S t a t e n o t e s t h a to u r S up r e me 8 Co urt ha s he ld that i f a doub le j eo pa rdy vio la tio n is fo und, the appe llate c ourts “ m ust 9 vacate the c onvi ction for the lesser offe nse.” Stat e v . G onzales , 200 7- N MS C- 059, 10 ¶ 10, 143 N

. M. 25, 172 P

. 3d 1 62. 11 { 23} Be ca

use D ef en da nt’ s arg um en t tha t hi s C SP I I- fe lon y co nv ic tio ns s houl d be 12 va cate d and r em an de d f or se nte nc ing a s C SP I V c onvi ct ion s w as a rg ue d fo r the f ir st 13 ti m e in hi s re pl y

bri e f , w e n eedno t an d d o n ot ad dr es s t ha t ar gu m en t. See Guest v. 14 B erardi nelli , 200 8- N MC A -1 44, ¶ 36, 145 N

. M. 186 , 195 P

. 3d 3 53 ( “ [W ] e do n ot 15 consider argum ents raised in a reply brief f or the first tim e. ”); Sta te v . D ruk te nis , 16 2004 -N MCA -032, ¶ 122, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050 (“ W e w ill not con sider issues 17 raised for the f

irst tim e in an appellant’ s reply brief. ”). But ev en i f De fe n dant had 18 earlier proposed h is solu tion o f lowe ring his CSP II -f el ony conviction s to CSP I V 19 co nv ic ti on s, w e w oul d no t be inc lin ed to ad opt his pr opos ed

sol uti on b ec au se he15

1 fai le d t o d ev el op th e arg um en t an d c it edno au th or it y in su pp or t o f th atm an eu ve r. See 2 Sta te v . V

igi l- G iro n , 201 4- N MC A -0 69, ¶ 60, 327 P. 3d 1129 (“ [A ] ppe llate c ourts w ill 3 not c onsi de r aniss ue if no au tho ri ty is ci te d in supp ort of the iss ue a nd tha t, giv enno 4 ci te d au tho ri ty , w e as sum e no suc h au tho ri tyexist s[

. ] ”) ; State v. F uentes , 5 2010 -N MC A -0 27, ¶

29, 147 N

. M. 761 , 228 P

. 3d 1 181 (n oti ng that w e w ill “ not 6 re vie wunc le ar

or und ev el ope d ar gum en ts [ tha t] r eq uir e us t o gu es s a t w ha t [ a pa rty ’ s] 7 argum ents m ight b e”); se e als o S tate v. Cl iff ord , 1994-NMS C-048, ¶ 19, 117 N. M. 8 508, 873 P. 2d 254 (r em ind ing co unse l tha t the appe llate c ourts “ ar e not r equir ed to 9 do their resear ch” and stating that “ concluso ry statem ent[s] will not suffice and [are] 10 in vi ol at io n o f ou r [R]ul es of [ A] pp el la te [P]roce du re”)

. 11 { 24} A lth oughit

is unc le ar

w hic h asso ci at ed fe lon y w as re lie d upon by the j ur y in 1 2 re ac h i n g i t s g u i l t y v er d i ct s fo r t h e t wo CS P I I- fe l o n y c o u n t s , we fo cu s o n De fe n d an t ’s 1 3 a r g u men tt h a tt h e k i d n ap p i n g a n d C S P I I

- f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s v i o l a t e d o ub l e je o p a r d y. 14 De fendant asks this Court to consid er vac ating the di stributi on of a controlled 15 subs tanc e co nvi ct ionor c ontri but ing to the de lin que nc y of a m ino r co nvi ct iononl y 16 if w e dis ag re e tha t the CS P II -f el ony a nd k idn appi ng co nvi ct ion s vi ola te double 17 j eopa rd y . B ec au se , a s e xpl ai ne d late r in this opi nio n, w e hol d th at c onvi ct ing 18 D ef en dant fo r both kidna

ppi ng an d CS P II -f

el ony w oul d vi ola te double j eo pa rdy a nd 19 because w e instruct the district c ourt to vacate the CSP II- felony conviction s, w e need16

1 not a nd d o no t addr es s D ef

en da nt’ s a lte rn at ive a rg um en ts tha t hi s c onvi ct ion s f or 2 dis tr ibu tio n and/ or

c ontri but ing to the de lin que nc y w oul d vi ola te double j eo pa rdy if 3 co upl ed

w iththe CS P II -f

el ony c onvi ct ion s. 4 { 25} D ou bl e jeop ard y ch al le ng es in vo lv e co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on s o f la w th atwe 5 rev ie w de n ov o. SeeState v. M elendrez , 2014 -N MC A -0 62, ¶ 5, 326 P. 3d 1 126. T he 6 pr ohi bit iona ga ins t doub le j eo pa rdy “ func tio ns in pa rt to pr ote ct a cr im ina l de fe ndant 7 ag ai ns t m

ul ti pl e p un is hm en ts forth e sa m e o ffen se .” State v. Swick, 20 12 -NMS C- 018, 8 ¶ 10, 279 P. 3d 74 7 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). D oubl e j eo pardy 9 m ult ipl e- puni shm en t c as es a re div ide d in to tw o c la ssi fi catio ns: ( 1) m ult ipl e 10 co nvi ct ion s un de r a sin gle statut e ar e “ uni t of pr ose cu tio n” c as es ; an d ( 2) m ult ipl e 11 co nvi ct ion s un de r se pa rate statut es r es ult ing f ro m the sa m e co nduc t are “ doub le 12 de sc rip ti on ” cas es . Id . B ecause w e are dealing with m ultip le conviction s under 13 se pa rat e st atut es , t hi s is a do ub le de sc rip ti on cas e. Fo r do ub le de sc rip ti on cas es , we 14 ap ply the tw o- part

te st s et f orth i n Sw aff

ord v. Sta te , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶ 25, 112 15 N

. M. 3, 810 P

. 2d 1 223: ( 1) w he the r the co nduc t is unit ar y ; and ( 2) if

so, w he the r the 16 Leg is la tu re int en de d to pu ni sh th e of fen s e s s e p a rat el y . Sta te v . Silva s , 17 20 15 -NMSC -0 06 , ¶ 9, 3 43 P.3d 61 6. 18 A. Un itary Cond uct17

1 { 26} Ina na ly zi ng a

double de sc ri pt io n m

ult ipl e- puni shm en t c la im , w e fi rs t 2 de te rm in e whe th er t he un de rlyin g c on du ctforth e o ffen se s i s u ni ta ry . Se e Sw aff ord , 3 1991 -N MS C- 043, ¶

25. “ Co nduc t i s no t un itary if su ffi cie nt i ndi ci a of dis tin ctne ss 4 separate the transaction into several acts.” State v. M onto ya , 201 1- N MC A -0 74, ¶

31, 5 150 N

. M

. 41 5, 25 9 P

. 3d 82 0 ( i nt e rna l qu ot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om itted). I n 6 spe ci fi ca lly an al y zi ng w he the r the co nduc t unde rl y ing kidna ppi ng and C SP I I- fe lon y 7 co nvi ct ion s is uni tary , thi s C ourt ha s he ld tha t “ uni tary c ondu ct oc curs w he n th e 8 [prosecution] bases its theory of [kid nappin g] on the sam e forc e used to comm it CSP 9 II[ -f el o n y] even thoug h there w ere alternative w ay s to charge the crim e. ” Id

. ¶ 37. 10 Stated anothe r way , “because som e forc e or re straint is inv olved in every sexual 11 penetration without con sent, [kidnapping ] cannot be charged out of every CSP 12 without a showing of force or r estraint separate from the CSP .” Id

. ¶

38. 13 { 27} Inthe pr es en t c as e, the j ur y co uld ha ve fo und tha t De fe ndant’ s ki dna ppi ng o f 14 V ic tim

w as c om ple te w he n he d ecei ved V ic tim int o e nte ri ng h is c ar

by of fe ri ng 15 Victim

a ride hom e. The j ury

could also hav e found that t h e k i d n ap ping wa s 1 6 ac co m

p l i s h ed wh en Vi ct i m , f

ee l i n g fo rc ed an di n t i m i d at ed , e n t er ed De fe n d an t ’s 17 apartm ent and rem ained while the ensuing acts of CSP occurred. When the condu ct 18 unde rl y ing tw o c onvi ct ion s co uld be uni tary unde r the fa ct s, but w e ar e unsure if

the 19 j ur y r el ie d onthat un itary

c ondu ct f or both c onvi ct ion s, w e nev er the le ss a ssu m e fo r18

1 the pur po se s of our do ubl e j eo pa rdy a na ly sis that the c ondu ct w as uni tary

be ca use 2 on e o f th e o pt io ns /a lt ern at iv es /s cen ari os is leg al ly ina de qu at e. Se e id. ¶ 39 3 (a cknow le dgi ng the pr inc ipl e tha t “ w e m ust r ev er se ac onvi ct ionif one of the 4 al te rn at ive ba se s f

or th e con vic tio n pr ovi de d inthe j ur y ins tr uc tio ns i s le ga lly 5 ina de qua te be ca

use it vio la te s ade fe ndant’ s c onst it uti ona l r igh t t o be f re e fr om 6 doub le j eopardy ” and concluding t h at the conduct in the kidnapp ing and CSP w as 7 uni tary f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f d o ub l e j e o p a r d y

b e c au s e t h i s C o u rtw a s u n ab l e to 8 de te rm ine f

ro m the r e c o r d

wh e nthe kidna

ppi ng w as a cc om

pli she d ( int er

na l qu ota tio n 9 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; see also Sta te v. Foster , 1999 -NMSC -0 07, ¶ 27, 126 10 N

. M. 646 , 974 P

. 2d 1 40 ( “ [T ] he D oubl e Je opardy Cl au se . . . r equir e[ s] ac onvi ct ion 11 unde r a ge ne ra l ve rd ic t t o be r ev er sed if one of the a lte rn at ive ba se s f

or c onvi ct ion 12 pr ovi de d inthe j ur y instr uc tio ns i s le ga lly

ina de qua te be ca

use it vio la te s a 13 de fe nda

nt’ s c onst itutio nal ri gh t t o b e free fro m do ub le jeop ard y [.]” (in te rn al qu otati on 14 m ark s o m it te d) ), abro gatio n on other gr ound s recognized

by Kersey v. Hatch , 201 0- 15 N MS C- 020, ¶

17, 148 N

. M. 381 , 237 P

. 3d 6 83. 16 { 28} As we s ta te d i n S ect io n (I ), supra , w e have no d o u b t that De fendant wa s 17 as sis te d inc ar

ry ing out the ac ts of CS P by the c om m iss ionof

the a sso ci at ed

f el oni es . 18 A nd i f the j ur

y c oul d have f

ound that the kidnappi ng w as a cc om pli she d duri ng the 19 CS Ps , w hic h is pos sib le giv en the te sti m ony , the co nduc t wo uld be uni tary be ca use19

1 t h e f o rc e u s ed fo r t h e k i d n ap p i n g wo u l db e t h e s a me fo rc e u s ed fo r t h e C SP s . We 2 therefore conclude, for the purpos es o f ou r do uble j eopardy analy sis, that the conduct 3 w a s u n i t a ry. 4 B. Legislative Intent 5 { 29} Whe re uni tary

c ondu ct f orm s th e ba sis f

or m ult ipl e co nvi ct ion s, w e ne xt 6 “ inquir e w he the r [the d] ef en da nt ha s be en puni she d tw ic e fo r the sa m e of fe nse , a nd 7 if s o, wh et he r th e Leg is la tu re i nt en de d t ha t re su lt .” Silva s , 2015 -N MSC- 006, ¶ 11. “ In 8 an al y zi ng l eg isl at ive int ent, [the appe llate c ourts] f ir st l ook to the langua ge of the 9 statute itself.” Swick , 2012 -N MS C- 018, ¶ 11. In the ab se nc e of a n e xpr es s st at em en t 1 0 o f l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , w e ap p l y t h e r u l e o f s t a tu t o ry c o n s t r

u c t i o n f r o m Blockburger v. 11 United States , 284 U

. S. 299 , 304 ( 1932 ), to en sur e tha t “ ea ch pr ovi sio n r equir es pr oof 12 of a fa ct t h e other does not.” Sw aff ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶

10 ( int er na l qu ota tio n 13 m arks om itted). “ If that test establishes that one statute is subsum ed within the other, 14 the inquir

y is ove r an d th e sta tut es a re the sa m e fo r doub le j eo pardy 15 purpos es—punis hm ent cannot be had for both.” Id

. ¶ 30. Whe n punis hm en t c an not 16 be ha d fo r bo th , “ [t]he ge ne ral rul e req ui res th atth e le ss er o ffen se b e v a c a t e d

. . . 1 7 [a nd]

. . . t h e d e g r e e o f f e l o n y . . . i s a n ap p r o p r i a t e m e a s u r e o f l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e nt 18 regarding which of two offe nses is a greater offense. ” Swick , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ 31 19 (thir d om iss ionin orig in al ) (i nte rn al quo tatio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ If one20

1 sta tut e req uir es pr oof

of af ac t tha t the oth er

doe s no t, the n th e L eg isl at ur e is 2 pr es um ed

to ha ve int en de d ase pa rate puni shm en t fo r ea chstatut e w ith out of fe ndi ng 3 pr inc ipl es of

double j eo pa rdy . T ha t pr es um ption , how ev er , is not

c onc lus ive a nd i t 4 m ay b e overcom e by

other indicia of legislative int ent.” Silva s , 2 0 1 5

- N M S C

- 0 0 6, 5 ¶¶ 12-13 (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted). 6 { 30} “ Whe n apply ing B loc kb urge r to s ta tut es that are va gue a nd unspe ci fi c or 7 wr itten wi t h m an y alternatives, w e look to th e char ging docum ents and jury 8 ins tr uc tio ns t o id en tif

y the spe ci fi c cr im ina l cause s of ac tio n f or w hic h th e de fe ndant 9 wa s convicted.” State v. R amirez , 2 01 6- NMCA-0 72 , ¶18 , 38 7 P .3d 26 6, cert. denied , 10 2016 -N MC E RT -_

__ (N o. S- 1- SC -3 5949 , Jul y 20, 201 6)

. T he j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns i n th e 11 present case f

or the CSP II- felonies required the j ury to find that Defendant caused 12 V ic tim

to en ga ge in fe llatio a nd ana l i nte rc ourse du ri ng the c om m iss ionof 13 kidna ppi ng o r dis tr ibu tio n of

a co ntr oll ed subs tanc e to a m ino r or co ntr ibu tin g to the 14 de lin qu en cy

of am ino r. T he j ur

y ins tr uc tio n f or the se pa rate c ri m e of

kidna ppi ng 15 re qui re d th e j ur

y to fi nd tha t D ef

en da nt t ook, r es tr ai ne d, or tr an spor te d Vict im

by 16 fo rc e, int im ida tio n, or de ce pt io n with th e int en t t o ho ld V ic tim a ga ins t hi s w ill to 1 7 i n f l i c tas e x u a l o f

f e n s e o n h i m. 18 { 31} In co m

pa rin g th e two of

fen se s of CSP II-fe lo ny an d ki dn ap pi ng as c ha rg ed , we 19 loo k to Montoya , 201 1- NMCA-0 74, ¶ 42, a s in str

uc tiv e. I n Montoya , this Court21

1 considered whether the def en dant’ s right to b e fr ee f rom doub le j eopardy

wa s 2 vio la te d whe n he wa s conv ic te d of both CS P II -f el ony an d the as soc ia te d f el ony of 3 ei th er ag gr av at edbu rg la ry or k id napp in g. Id

. ¶ 28. A fter holding th at the conduct 4 underly ing the CSP II-f elony convictio n and the aggravated b urglary conviction wa s 5 not uni tary , but

that the co nduc t un de rl y ing the CS P II -f el ony c onvi ct iona nd 6 ki dn ap pi ng co nv ic ti on co ul d b e u ni ta ry , th is Co ur t t urne d t o l e g i s l a t i ve in te nt . Id

. 7 ¶¶ 34, 39- 40. I n e va lua tin g le gis la tiv e int en t, w e loo ke d to the j ur y ins tr uc tio ns 8 provided for the CS P II -felony count and th e kidnappi ng c ount and determ ined that 9 the CSP II- felony

instruction “ required the ju ry to find that [the d] efendant caused 10 [the v] ic tim to eng ag e in sex ua l inte rc our se dur ing the c om m iss ionof

[ kidna ppi ng] 11 or aggravated burglary .” Id

. ¶ 41. P er the jury instructio ns, this Court conclud ed that 12 CS P II -f

el ony r equir ed pr oof of a ll of the e le m en ts o f kidnappi ng, a nd thus the 13 ki dn ap pi ng co nv ic ti on was s ub su m edwit hi n t he CSP II -fel on y co nv ic ti on . Id

. ¶

42. 14 { 32} H er e, sim ilar to Montoya , our analy sis of t he j ury instructio ns for th e CSP II15 felony and k idnapp ing charges supp orts a conclusion that kidn apping is subs um ed 16 wit hi n t he CSP II -fel on y co nv ic ti on s. Se e id. W e theref ore re m and to the dis trict court 17 wit h i ns tru ct io ns to va cat e Defen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on fo r th e le ss er o ffen se , se e id. ¶ 43, 18 which m eans “ vacat[ing] the conviction car ryi ng the sho rter se ntence.” State v. 19 Montoya , 2013 -N MS C- 020, ¶ 55, 306 P. 3d 426. U nde r the fa ct s of thi s c as e, be ca

use14 W e acknowledge that stating th e kidnappi ng is su bsum ed, while hold ing th at 3 15 kidn apping wa s the greater offens e as com

pared to CSP II- felony , see m s irregular. 16 “ Subsum e” m eans to “ include or place som ething within som ethi n g l arger or m ore 17 com prehensive[.] ” M

erria m -W eb ste r’ s C oll egia te D ic tio nary490 (11th ed. 2005 ). 18 Yet h ere we a re al so ho ld in g t ha t t he s u b s um edoff en se is th e g reat er o ffen se . As 19 not ed by our Supr em e Co urt i n Montoya , 201 3- N MS C- 020, ¶ 56, “ as am atte r of 20 policy , it would be unacceptable for us to hold that wher e a per son’s cr im inal condu ct 21 w oul d have vio la te d eithe r of tw o st at ute s, ade fe ndant c ane sc ap e lia bil ity f or the one 22 carr y ing the gr eate r puni shm en t by c om m itt ing the c ri m e in s uc h am an ne r as to al so 23 violate the statute carry ing th e lesser penalty .” 22 1 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionf

or kidna ppi ng w as af

ir st d eg re e fe lon y

c onvi ct iona nd h is 2 convictio ns for CSP II- felony we re sec ond d egree felony convi ct ions, the CSP I I3 fe lon y c onvi ct ion s are the le sse r of fe nse s. W e, the re fo re , ins tr uc t the dis tr ic t c ourt t o 4 va cate the CS P II -f

el ony co nvi ct ion s, le av ing the kidna ppi ng co nv icti on. See 3 5 M ont oy a v . D rig

ge rs , 2014-NMS C-009, ¶ 9, 320 P.3d 987 (notin g that the dist rict 6 court com

plied with this Cou rt’ s m andate to vac ate the lesser convictio n of CSP II7 fe lon y be ca use , be tw ee n C SP I I- fe lon y a nd k idn ap pin g ( fi rs t de gr ee ), CS P II -f el ony 8 w as the le sse r co nvi ct ion ); Swick , 2012-NMS C-018, ¶ 31 (“ The gener al rule requires 9 that the lesser o ff

e ns e b e v a c a t e d

. . . [ a nd ]

. . . t he d e gr e e o f f e l on y . . . i s an 10 appropriate m easure of legislative int ent regarding which of tw o offenses is a grea ter 11 of fe nse . ” (thir d om iss ionin or igi na l) ( al te ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd 12 citation om itted)). 13 CON CLU SION23

1 { 33} Fo r the r ea sons se t f orth i n th is o pin ion , w e rem an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt w ith 2 instructio ns to vacate De fendant’ s CSP II- felony convictio ns. W e af firm the district 3 co urt’ s j udgm en t i n a ll oth er r es pe ct s. 4 { 34} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 6 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 7 WE CO NCUR:

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e