 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Roper10/30/2001
shooting. The danger to Defendant's due process rights was minimal in this case.
7. Inconsistent Verdicts
Defendant claims he should receive a new trial on the conspiracy to commit shooting from a vehicle conviction because (1) there was insufficient evidence to support it as argued in his first issue, (2) when the trial court merged the conspiracy to commit aggravated assault conviction with it, the trial court selected the conspiracy crime that made the least sense inasmuch as Defendant was acquitted of the charges of actually shooting the gun that injured the victims, and (3) conviction of conspiracy to shoot from a vehicle was inconsistent with the acquittal for conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. If there was insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy for which Defendant was convicted and sentenced, the remedy would be a discharge, not a new trial. See State v. Benton, 118 N.M. 614, 615, 884 P.2d 505, 506 (Ct. App. 1994). Since we have concluded above that there is sufficient evidence, we do not discuss this ground for a new trial further.
Defendant successfully sought to have the trial court merge his two conspiracy convictions. This action was entirely proper because there appeared to be only one conspiracy. See State v. Jackson, 116 N.M. 130, 134, 860 P.2d 772, 776 (Ct. App.1993). Defendant's arguments concerning his alleged acquittal on charges of shooting the gun or conspiracy to commit aggravated battery are not legitimate arguments on appeal. We have frequently said that our business is to review the verdicts of conviction, and not concern ourselves with any alleged acquittals, and thus we do not entertain contentions alleging that the verdicts are irreconcilable. See State v. Fernandez, 117 N.M. 673, 680, 875 P.2d 1104, 1111 (Ct. App. 1994); State v. Leyba, 80 N.M. 190, 195, 453 P.2d 211, 216 (Ct. App. 1969). We will not grant Defendant a new trial on this ground.
CONCLUSION
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LYNN PICKARD, Judge
WE CONCUR:
A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
|