State v. Licon
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-37006 5 SAUL D. LICON, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 8 Gary L. Clingman, District Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Templeman and Crutchfiled 13 Barry Crutchfield 14 Lovington, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 HANISEE, Judge. 18 {1} Saul Licon (Defendant) appeals from denial of his motion to reconsider 19 sentence on double jeopardy grounds, following entry of an unconditional guilty plea 20 and a judgment and sentence convicting him of three counts of aggravated assault with 1 a deadly weapon upon a peace officer, two counts of battery upon a peace officer, and 2 driving with a revoked license. [RP 78, 95, 99, 104] We issued a notice proposing to 3 affirm. [CN 1, 4] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly 4 considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 5 {2} Defendant continues to argue his conduct constituted only one offense because 6 the events occurred within seconds of each other, there were no intervening acts, each 7 of the acts constituted swerving at or from police cars, each act involved the same 8 intent by Defendant, and the three officers who were the victims were engaged in a 9 combined effort to stop Defendant. [MIO 2-3] As set forth in our notice to Defendant, 10 under State v. Olsson, 2014-NMSC-012, 324 P.3d 1230 and State v. Bernal, 200611 NMSC-050, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289, we conclude Defendant’s actions in 12 sequentially swerving his vehicle toward each of the three officers—each of whom 13 drove their own separate police vehicle—to be sufficiently distinct for double 14 jeopardy purposes. We find Defendant’s argument his acts constituted a single offense 15 unavailing. Therefore, we hold the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s 16 motion to reconsider his sentence on double jeopardy grounds. We further conclude 17 Defendant’s argument also does not provide a basis for vacating his multiple 18 convictions on double jeopardy grounds. 19 {3} Accordingly, we affirm. 2 1 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 WE CONCUR: J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 5 6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 7 8 JULIE J. VARGAS, 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.
