Introduction

The case of STATE of New Mexico v. Mario Bernal (140 N.M. 644) addresses significant legal questions regarding the application of double jeopardy in the context of multiple attempted armed robbery charges arising from a single criminal incident. This commentary explores the nuances of the Supreme Court of New Mexico’s decision, focusing on whether the single-larceny doctrine applies to attempted armed robbery and the implications for double jeopardy protections.

Summary of the Judgment

Mario Bernal was convicted of felony murder, two counts of attempted armed robbery, and several other crimes following a violent burglary that resulted in the death of Felipe Giron and the attempted robbery of Carey Romero. Bernal appealed his convictions on the grounds of double jeopardy and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed his convictions, ruling that multiple attempted robbery convictions for distinct victims do not constitute double jeopardy violations. Additionally, the court found no merit in Bernal’s claims of ineffective legal representation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced prior cases to frame its analysis:

• SWAFFORD v. STATE: Established the de novo review standard for double jeopardy claims and addressed double-description and unit-of-prosecution issues.
• STATE v. CONTRERAS: Discussed the relationship between predicate felonies and felony murder under double jeopardy.
• HERRON v. STATE: Introduced factors for the unit-of-prosecution analysis, focusing on distinctness of criminal acts.
• BORCHARDT v. STATE, PEOPLE v. RAMOS, and JORDAN v. COMMONWEALTH: Demonstrated jurisdictions allowing multiple robbery convictions for separate victims.
• ALLEN v. STATE and STATE v. COLLINS: Presented opposing views where multiple robbery convictions were not permitted under the single-larceny doctrine.

These precedents provided a foundation for the court’s determination that multiple attempted robberies against distinct victims could be separately prosecuted without violating double jeopardy protections.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a two-pronged approach to address Bernal’s double jeopardy claims:

• Double-Description Claim: Bernal argued that his conviction for attempted armed robbery of Romero served as a predicate for his felony murder conviction, essentially accusing him of being punished twice for the same offense. The court analyzed whether the acts were unitary—a single continuous action—or distinct. It concluded that the murder of Giron was a separate and completed act before the attempted robbery of Romero commenced, making them distinct offenses.
• Unit-of-Prosecution Analysis: Bernal contended that multiple attempted robberies constituted a single continuous offense with multiple victims, invoking the single-larceny doctrine. The court reviewed the legislative intent and the nature of robbery as a violent crime. Citing the policies from Maryland, California, and Virginia—which allow multiple robbery charges for distinct victims—the court determined that New Mexico’s legislature intended to permit separate charges for each victim harmed, especially when distinct acts of violence are involved.

The court emphasized that the use of different types of force, separate times, and against distinct individuals solidified the separateness of the crimes, thus not invoking double jeopardy.

Impact

This judgment sets a crucial precedent in New Mexico, clarifying that multiple attempts at armed robbery against different victims can be prosecuted separately without breaching double jeopardy protections. It underscores the court’s stance against applying the single-larceny doctrine to violent crimes like robbery, especially when multiple victims and distinct acts of force are present. This decision may influence future cases by providing a framework for evaluating unitary conduct and the permissibility of multiple charges in similar contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Double Jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause is part of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, protecting individuals from being tried twice for the same offense. In this case, Bernal argued that being convicted of both felony murder and attempted armed robbery amounted to being punished twice for the same criminal act.

Single-Larceny Doctrine

This doctrine suggests that a defendant cannot be convicted multiple times for thefts involving multiple victims if the thefts are part of a single, continuous action towards a single objective. Bernal attempted to apply this doctrine to his case to argue against multiple robbery convictions.

Unit-of-Prosecution Analysis

This analysis determines whether multiple charges arise from one continuous criminal action or from separate, distinct actions. Factors such as time, location, the nature of the acts, and the number of victims help in making this determination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Mexico's decision in STATE of New Mexico v. Mario Bernal affirms the possibility of multiple attempted robbery convictions against distinct victims without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. By rejecting the application of the single-larceny doctrine to violent crimes like robbery, the court upholds the legislative intent to penalize each distinct act of violence and intimidation against different individuals. Additionally, the court’s dismissal of Bernal's ineffective assistance of counsel claims underscores the high threshold required for such assertions to impact convictions.

This judgment not only clarifies the boundaries of double jeopardy in cases involving multiple victims but also reinforces the legal framework that differentiates between unitary and distinct criminal conduct, thereby guiding future prosecutions and defenses in similar scenarios.