Opinion
A-1-CA-38137
02-10-2022
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JARED YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Charles D. Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY James Waylon Counts, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Charles D. Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
DECISION
J. MILES HANISEE, CHIEF JUDGE
{¶1} Jared Young (Defendant) appeals from his conviction of unlawful assault on a jail pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-19 (1963). On appeal, Defendant solely contends that he was improperly charged and convicted of assault on a jail because the "purpose of the crime has always been to deter unauthorized invasions into the physical territory of a jail." In making this argument, Defendant asks us to overturn our recent holding in State v. Anderson, 2021-NMCA-031, 493 P.3d 434, cert. granted, 2021-NMCERT-____ (No. S-1-SC-38782, June 28, 2021).
{¶2} In Anderson, we considered the same facts giving rise to this case, conducted a full statutory analysis of Section 30-22-19-including its historical basis-and after applying our constitutional vagueness test, upheld Section 30-22-19. Anderson, 2021-NMCA-031, ¶¶ 3-4, 9-12. After reviewing the briefing, the authorities cited therein, and the record before us, we conclude that Anderson controls in the present case, and therefore consider Defendant's arguments to be without merit. See id ¶ 10 ("While [the defendants correctly point[ed] out that prosecutions for assault on a jail have departed from the historical understanding of the crime, nothing in our jurisprudence or the language of the statute itself requires "an external invasion into the physical boundaries of the jail for the purpose of procuring the escape of prisoners or similarly interfering with the lawful confinement of prisoners[.]" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm.
We note that should Defendant seek to petition for certiorari, our holding today does not preclude him from doing so.
{¶3} IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge