Court Opinion

ID: 9959045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 16:08:30.255863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:23.974151
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-40211

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION
FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF ARREST
AND PUBLIC RECORDS OF STEVEN
TRUITT,

STEVEN TRUITT,

      Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY,

      Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Stan Whitaker, District Court Judge

Ben A. Ortega
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Jason Greenlee, Legal Director
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

                                       DECISION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1}  Petitioner Steven Truitt appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for
expungement, filed pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 29-3A-1 to -9 (2019, as amended
through 2023)1 (Expungement Act or the Act). Petitioner argues that the district court
erred in concluding that his convictions were ineligible for expungement under the Act
on the basis that his underlying conduct resulted in the death of a clerk at the grocery
store that was robbed by Petitioner—the getaway driver—and various accomplices. See
§ 29-3A-5(G) (“The provisions of [the Act] do not apply to . . . an offense that caused
great bodily harm or death to another person.”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{2}     As an initial matter, in any appeal before this Court, “[i]t is the appellant’s burden
to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court
has erred.” Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10, 482
P.3d 1261. On December 3, 2021, the district court issued a well-reasoned, explanatory
order denying Petitioner’s request for expungement (the Order). Having carefully
reviewed the Order, as well as the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we
exercise our discretion to adopt the Order for substantially the same reasons as those
set forth therein. See Rule 12-405(B) NMRA (providing that appellate courts may
dispose of a case by nonprecedential order, decision, or memorandum opinion under
certain circumstances). We briefly supplement the reasoning expressed by the district
court in light of the issues raised on appeal.

{3}     In 1997, Petitioner was convicted of the following offenses: one count of
conspiracy to commit armed robbery, contrary to NMSA 1978, Sections 30-16-2 (1973)
and 30-28-2 (1979); and two counts of tampering with evidence, contrary to NMSA
1978, Section 30-22-5 (1963, amended 2003). Petitioner argues that his convictions are
eligible for expungement because his own criminal acts underlying them—driving a
getaway vehicle to and from the scene of an armed robbery at which a person was
murdered—did not “cause” death as prohibited by Section 29-3A-5(G). Petitioner
asserts that his role in the crime was too attenuated from the murder to establish
causation, the killing could still have occurred if Petitioner did not participate in the
crime, and nothing in the record suggests Petitioner actually knew the killer was armed
during the robbery. The district court rejected these same arguments, concluding first
that the Legislature’s use of the word “offense,” rather than “conviction,” in Section 29-
3A-5(G) is indicative of its intent to allow courts to consider facts and circumstances
beyond those narrowly supporting Petitioner’s convictions. The district court secondarily
noted that another section of the Act instructs courts to consider “the nature and gravity
of the offense or conduct that resulted in the petitioner’s conviction.” Section 29-3A-5(E)
(emphasis added). We agree with the district court that a plain reading of these two
sections, combined with the Legislature’s use of the word “conviction” elsewhere in the
Act in different contexts, see, e.g., § 29-3A-5(A) (using the word “conviction” four times
in a single sentence), clearly directs a district court to consider the broader conduct
underlying and surrounding a petitioner’s specific convictions. See State v. Notah, 2022-
NMCA-005, ¶ 31, 503 P.3d 418 (“When the language in a statute is clear and
unambiguous, we give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory
interpretation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Jade G., 2007-

1Certain sections of the Expungement Act were amended during the pendency of this case. See §§ 29-
3A-8, -4. Because such amendments do not impact this appeal, we cite the most recent version of the
statute herein.
NMSC-010, ¶ 28, 141 N.M. 284, 154 P.3d 659 (“[W]hen the Legislature includes a
particular word in one portion of a statute and omits it from another portion of that
statute, such omission is presumed to be intentional.”).

{4}     While we adopt the district court’s Order for the above reasons, we also briefly
explain that Petitioner’s conviction of conspiracy to commit armed robbery is itself
ineligible for expungement. By arguing that his involvement in the robbery was too
attenuated from the actual killing to establish a causal relationship, Petitioner
misconstrues the very nature of conspiracy. “As a general rule, one who participates in
a criminal venture is treated by the law as if he or she had committed all of the criminal
acts of the other participants.” State v. Catt, 2019-NMCA-013, ¶ 21, 435 P.3d 1255
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A conspirator is ordinarily responsible
for the criminal acts of coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Id. (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); see also, State v. McDonald, 2004-NMSC-033, ¶
14, 136 N.M. 417, 99 P.3d 667 (“Because [the d]efendant participated in armed robbery,
he can be sentenced for the death that resulted from the robbery.”). The nature of
conspiracy is that it spans the panoply of criminal acts committed by coconspirators
made in furtherance of the criminal agreement. In other words, by being convicted of
conspiracy to commit armed robbery, Petitioner established the causal relationship
between his acts and those made in furtherance of the goals of the conspiracy, which
include in this case the murder of the store employee. For this reason, and those relied
on by the district court, Petitioner’s convictions are ineligible for expungement.

CONCLUSION

{5}    For the above reasons, we affirm.

{6}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge