State v. Blackwell
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-36794 5 DOMEKIO BLACKWELL, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Cindy Leos, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 13 William A. O’Connell, Assistant Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Judge. 18 {1} Defendant Domekio Blackwell appeals his conviction for aggravated burglary. 19 We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and 1 Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We have carefully 2 considered the memorandum but continue to believe that affirmance is warranted in 3 this case. Therefore, for the reasons set out below and in our notice of proposed 4 summary disposition, we affirm. 5 {2} Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was the 6 person who entered the house where Victim was staying, hit Victim, then returned 7 with a sledge-hammer and threatened Victim. [MIO 1-2, 4-6] However, Defendant 8 acknowledges that Victim identified him in court as the person who committed these 9 acts. [Id. 1] This testimony alone was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that 10 Defendant committed the alleged acts. See, e.g., State v. Verdugo, 2007-NMCA-095, 11 ¶ 27, 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966 (relying mainly on the victim’s testimony to affirm 12 the defendant’s conviction for robbery). To the extent Defendant asks this Court to re13 weigh the evidence and discount Victim’s testimony, we will not do so. See State v. 14 Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 5, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057. 15 {3} Defendant requests that we issue a published opinion if we intend to place a 16 burden on trial counsel to ensure that jury instructions have been made part of the 17 record proper prior to counsel’s preparation of a docketing statement. [MIO 4] Our 18 notice was not intended to create such a burden; however, we do note that if a 19 defendant plans to challenge some aspect of the jury instructions, it is Defendant’s 2 1 burden to bring up a record sufficient to allow us to review that challenge. State v. 2 Jim, 1988-NMCA-092, ¶ 3, 107 N.M. 779, 765 P.2d 195. This may be done via a 3 motion to supplement the record if the fact that material is missing from the record has 4 not been noticed at a prior time. 5 {4} Based on the foregoing as well as the discussion in our notice of proposed 6 summary disposition, we affirm Defendant’s conviction. 7 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 ______________________________________ MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11 __________________________ 12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 13 __________________________ 14 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 3
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.
