Opinion ID: 2594069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶50] Mr. Sanchez claims that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction for first degree felony murder and second degree murder, and therefore, the convictions must be reversed. Although difficult to glean from his brief, Mr. Sanchez appears to contend that it is impossible to find that he acted recklessly and, at the same time, acted purposely and maliciously. Because he concludes that the two states of mind are mutually exclusive, he contends the State could not have proven both crimes. [¶51] Mr. Sanchez's argument has no merit. We have held that intentional conduct encompasses reckless conduct. See Simmons v. State, 2003 WY 84, ¶ 30, 72 P.3d 803, 814 (Wyo. 2003) (holding that if the evidence supports a finding that a reasonable jury could conclude [the appellant] intentionally inflicted physical injury upon [the child], recklessness is established). The verdict form indicates the jury found Mr. Sanchez guilty of second degree murder which requires that he acted purposefully and maliciously. It follows necessarily that Mr. Sanchez also acted recklessly. [I]f the crime can be committed recklessly, it is no less committed if the actor acted purposely. Simmons, 2003 WY 84, ¶ 30, 72 P.3d at 813-814. In addition, the two crimes were properly merged for sentencing. We find no error.