SANTA FE, NM – In a landmark decision on January 16, 2024, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Ramon Lorenzo, vacating one of his convictions on grounds of double jeopardy. The case, stemming from a 2013-armed robbery and shooting at the WOW Diner in Milan, New Mexico, determined that convicting Lorenzo for both armed robbery and aggravated battery violated his constitutional rights against double jeopardy. J ustice David Thomson, delivering the opinion of the court, explained that the conduct underlying both charges was 'unitary,' meaning the same evidence - specifically, a shooting incident during the robbery - was used to prove both offenses. This, the Court decided, was not the Legislature's intention to allow multiple punishments for the same act.
The case originated from a harrowing event on the night of March 23, 2013, when Ramon Lorenzo and an accomplice, identified as former employees of the WOW Diner, launched an armed attack on the establishment shortly after its closing time. The owner, Richard Rivard, was confronted at the back door, resulting in a struggle that led to Rivard being shot in the face. Miraculously, Rivard survived the ordeal.
Lorenzo's subsequent trial saw him facing a slew of charges, leading to a conviction that included armed robbery and aggravated battery, netting him a sentence of twenty-six and one-half years in prison.
The case took a significant turn when Lorenzo appealed his convictions, bringing into question the application of double jeopardy principles — the constitutional protection against being tried or convicted twice for the same act.
Upon appeal, Lorenzo challenged his convictions based on double jeopardy principles, arguing that being punished for both the robbery and the battery constituted being punished twice for the same action. The Supreme Court's agreement with Lorenzo’s argument signifies a pivotal moment in legal interpretations of double jeopardy protections.
The Court meticulously examined whether the Legislature intended for the unitary conduct to result in separate punishments under the involved statutes. The justices concluded that the evidence used to prove the armed robbery inherently proved the aggravated battery, making the conduct unitary and the convictions overlapping under double jeopardy considerations. To determine this, justices reviewed all the jury instructions and learned they were instructed to use the same evidence in both charges, leading to the double jeopardy violation.
These rulings mandate that Lorenzo's conviction for aggravated battery, the offense carrying the shorter sentence, must be struck, and eliminated.
The sentence that was vacated is a third-degree felony. Although the exact sentence length for the aggravated battery charge is not specified in the court SCONM paperwork a thirddegree felony in New Mexico can carry a basic sentence of up to three years in prison. However, the specific sentence vacated because of the Supreme Court's decision would have been part of Lorenzo's total sentence of twenty-six and one-half years for all charges combined.
The decision reinforces the double jeopardy clause's protection against multiple punishments for the same offense and clarifies its application in cases involving unitary conduct under different statutory offenses.