State v. Romero
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. A-1-CA-35526 5 FELIX ROMERO, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 8 George P. Eichwald, District Judge 9 10 11 12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Laurie Blevins, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 15 William O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellant 18 19 VANZI, Chief Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence convicting him of multiple counts 2 of possession of child pornography, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-6A-3(A) 3 (2007, amended 2016). Defendant contends that under the dictates of State v. Olsson, 4 2014-NMSC-012, 324 P.3d 1230, he should only have been convicted of one count. 5 The State agrees with Defendant’s argument. While we are not bound by the State’s 6 concession, see State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-027, ¶ 9, 284 P.3d 1076, we have 7 examined the facts and circumstances of this case and find that Defendant’s argument 8 and the State’s concession are correct statements of the law as applied to this case. 9 We therefore hold that Defendant should have been convicted of only one count of 10 possession of child pornography. We reverse and remand for vacation of all but one 11 of Defendant’s convictions and for further proceedings as may be appropriate. 12 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 __________________________________ LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 15 WE CONCUR: 16 _________________________________ 17 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 18 _________________________________ 19 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
