{ "id": 4362698, "name": "STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC BERNARD, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bernard", "decision_date": "2015-06-23", "docket_number": "Docket No. 33,287", "first_page": "440", "last_page": "454", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2015-NMCA-089" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "282 P.3d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMCA-062", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4190191 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/2/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N.M. 740", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 723295 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/113/0740-01" ] }, { "cite": "1992-NMCA-041", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 5" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 P.3d 1068", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMSC-016", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4239185 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/6/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005-NMCA-045", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 929193 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 15" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/137/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 P.3d 925", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMCA-047", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4078152 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/5/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 P.3d 1076", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMSC-017", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4240727 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/6/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "2009-NMSC-017", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4243229 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/146/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMCA-160", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3783538 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/143/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "1999-NMCA-081", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 257774 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 16-23" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/127/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 N.M. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1558868 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/120/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "1995-NMCA-042", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 19-27" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.M. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715214 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "1991-NMSC-012", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.M. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584608 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/99/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "1983-NMCA-003", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 5" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.M. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1555106 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/97/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "1982-NMSC-012", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" }, { "page": "\u00b6 2" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1999-NMCA-118", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 257776 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 26" }, { "page": "\u00b6 11" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 19-26" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/127/0763-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005-NMCA-028", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 929212 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 29" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 21-27" }, { "page": "\u00b6 21" }, { "page": "\u00b6 19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/137/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "2008-NMCA-060", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4003811 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 11" }, { "page": "\u00b6 18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/144/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-030", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 1224666 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 43" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/136/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N.M. 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 723215 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/113/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "1992-NMCA-028", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 6" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 6, 13" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 6-13" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 P.3d 1230", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMSC-012", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4239073 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 5, 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 39" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/6/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMSC-011", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 2544090 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 33" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 35-38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/139/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMSC-003", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 3669570 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/141/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "2001-NMSC-018", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 352261 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/130/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMSC-050", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 3671204 ], "weight": 10, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 14" }, { "page": "\u00b6 30" }, { "page": "\u00b6 15" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 20-21" }, { "page": "\u00b6 16" }, { "page": "\u00b6 14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/140/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 N.M. 3", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 720274 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/112/0003-01" ] }, { "cite": "1991-NMSC-043", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 8" }, { "page": "\u00b6 27" }, { "page": "\u00b6 27" }, { "page": "\u00b6 28" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2011-NMCA-018", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4250024 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 38" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/149/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 N.M. 780", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 723308 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/113/0780-01" ] }, { "cite": "1992-NMSC-006", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 7" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2770810 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "1973-NMSC-055", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 26" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 N.M. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1565166 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/45/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "1941-NMSC-036", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1998-NMSC-016", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 834335 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/125/0308-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N.M. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566622 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/121/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "1996-NMSC-003", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2006-NMCA-063", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 2544763 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/139/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N.M. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 708443 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/106/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "1987-NMSC-054", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 8" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2010-NMCA-079", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4246341 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/148/0888-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2775044 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "1973-NMCA-138", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.M. 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566662 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/121/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "1996-NMSC-038", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 14" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.M. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1552781 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/117/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "1994-NMCA-009", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 15" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 P.3d 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-019", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4188914 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/2/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "2009-NMCA-109", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4245299 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/147/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMCA-106", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3669982 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/140/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "2010-NMSC-019", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4248191 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/148/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 P.3d 747", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-018", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4189500 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 55" }, { "page": "\u00b6 10" }, { "page": "\u00b6 33" }, { "page": "\u00b6 33" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/2/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-019", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 1428026 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/135/0621-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1556, "char_count": 49364, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14876813281392082 }, "sha256": "dfe6cada23ed6c9c806f0e3ee9a1631acfb649e83a95939d3a2a6e5a23e23dc4", "simhash": "1:815dc6c6aea33c52", "word_count": 7779 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:54.428467+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge", "WE CONCUR:", "CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge", "J. MILES HANISEE, Judge" ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC BERNARD, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWECHSLER, Judge.\n{1} A jury convicted Defendant Eric Bernard of four counts of receiving or transferring stolen vehicles or motor vehicles, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16D-4(A) (2009), for his unlawful possession of a stolen enclosed trailer, a snowmobile, and two side-by-side all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). Defendant appeals his convictions on various grounds. Defendant contends that, based on his interpretation of Section 30-16D-4(A), the jury instructions improperly omitted an essential element of the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under the statute. Due to the omission of this essential element, Defendant also argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Defendant further contends that his four convictions based on a single statute violate the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. Finally, Defendant raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We hold that (1) the jury instructions accurately followed the language of the statute and contained all the essential elements of the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle, (2) Defendant\u2019s sufficiency of evidence argument is without merit due to his incorrect interpretation of the statute, (3) Defendant\u2019s four separate convictions do not violate his double jeopardy rights because Defendant\u2019s possession of each stolen vehicle constitutes four distinct acts, and (4) Defendant failed to make a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant\u2019s convictions.\nBACKGROUND\n{2} Defendant received four convictions for the possession of four stolen vehicles, three of which were unlawfully taken in 2012 from Tim Kelley\u2019s property located near Durango, Colorado. At the time of the theft, Kelley and his family were away from the property recovering from multiple injuries they had sustained earlier that year when their home was destroyed by a propane leak explosion. Jerry Spinnichia, who was convicted in Colorado of the theft of Kelley\u2019s vehicles, testified at Defendant\u2019s trial that he, Defendant, and another person drove onto Kelley\u2019s property and located a twenty-seven foot enclosed trailer. According to Spinnichia\u2019s testimony, the perpetrators loaded some items in the trailer, hitched the trailer to their vehicle, and towed the trailer off the property. Included among the stolen items inside the trailer were Kelley\u2019s snowmobile and Polaris Ranger side-by-side ATV. Spinnichia also testified that he and Defendant then drove the enclosed trailer containing the snowmobile and the Polaris ATV to the home of Steven Murch near Aztec, New Mexico. Police officers testified that they later recovered the stolen vehicles from Murch\u2019s property. Inside the trailer, officers also found a Honda side-by-side ATV that had previously been reported stolen from a home located in San Juan County, New Mexico.\n{3} Defendant was arrested and charged with four counts of receiving or transferring stolen vehicles or motor vehicles, in violation of Section 30-16D-4(A), for his possession ofthe stolen enclosed trailer, the snowmobile, the Polaris ATV, and the Honda ATV. The relevant text of the statute reads:\nA. Receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle consists of a person who, with intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle or motor vehicle as defined by the Motor Vehicle Code [66-1-1 NMSA 1978] that the person knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken, receives or transfers possession ofthe vehicle or motor vehicle from or to another or who has in the person\u2019s possession any vehicle that the person knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken[.\\\nSection 30-16D-4(A) (Emphasis added).\n{4} After hearing the evidence at trial, the jury received instructions for the essential elements of the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under the statute. The instructions given, which conformed with the uniform jury instructions, specified that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had possession of each stolen vehicle and \u201cknew or had reason to know that [the] vehicle[s] had been stolen or unlawfully taken[.]\u201d UJI 14-1652. The jury convicted Defendant on all four counts for his possession of the stolen enclosed trailer, the snowmobile, the Polaris ATV, and the Honda ATV, contrary to Section 30-16D-4(A). Defendant raises four issues on appeal that we address in turn.\nJURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR POSSESSION OF A STOLEN VEHICLE, SECTION 30-16D-4(A)\n{5} Although the trial court instructed the jury in accordance with the applicable uniform jury instructions in this case, Defendant first argues that the jury instructions were fundamentally flawed by failing to include an essential element of the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle. Defendant\u2019s argument hinges on his construction of Section 30-16D-4(A). Defendant claims that statutory changes passed by the Legislature in 2009 made the \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d an essential element of the offense of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle under the statute. If, as Defendant asserts, the Legislature intended \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d to be an essential element, then the jury should have been instructed to that effect. See Rule 5-608(A) NMRA (\u201cThe court must instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury.\u201d). Defendant failed to object to the instructions at trial, but he argues on appeal that omission of this essential element from the jury instructions constituted fundamental error that compels reversal of his convictions. State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, \u00b6 20, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633 (\u201c[F]ailure to instruct the jury on an essential element, as opposed to a definition, ordinarily is fundamental error even when the defendant fails to object or offer a curative instruction.\u201d); see also State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, \u00b6 55, 279 P.3d 747 (\u201c[W]hen the jury instructions have not informed the jury that the [s]tate had the burden to prove an essential element . . . convictions have been reversed for fundamental error.\u201d).\nStandard of Review\n{6} Our determination whether the \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d is an essential element of the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under Section 30-16D-4(A) requires our interpretation of the statute and is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Tafoya, 2010-NMSC-019, \u00b6 9, 148 N.M. 391, 237 P.3d 693. \u201cOur primary goal when interpreting statutory language is to give effect to the intent of the [Legislature.\u201d State v. Torres, 2006-NMCA-106, \u00b6 8, 140 N.M. 230, 141 P.3d 1284. We first examine the statute\u2019s plain language, \u201cwhich is the primary indicator of legislative intent[.]\u201d Gonzales v. State Pub. Emps. Ret. Ass\u2019n, 2009-NMCA-109, \u00b6 13, 147 N.M. 201, 218 P.3d 1249 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cIn addition to looking at the statute\u2019s plain language, we will consider its history and background and how the specific statute fits within the broader statutory scheme.\u201d Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, \u00b6 12, 280 P.3d 283. When interpreting a statute that has been amended, \u201cthe amended language must be read within the context of the previously existing language, and the old and new language, taken as a whole, comprise the intent and purpose of the statute[.]\u201d Vigil v. Thriftway Mktg.Corp., 1994-NMCA-009, \u00b6 15, 117 N.M. 176, 870 P.2d 138. We must also \u201cread the statute in its entirety and construe each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole.\u201d Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 1996-NMSC-038, \u00b6 14, 121 N.M. 764, 918 P.2d 350.\nHistory and Plain Meaning of Section 30-16D-4\n{7} Prior to 2009, the statute codifying the crime of receiving or transferring stolen vehicles or motor vehicles resided in the Motor Vehicle Code. That language read:\nAny person who, with intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle or motor vehicle which he knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken, receives, or transfers possession of the same from or to another, or who has in his possession any vehicle which he knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken,... is guilty of a fourth degree felony[.]\nNMSA 1978, Section 66-3-505 (1978). In State v. Wise, 1973-NMCA-138, 85 N.M. 640, 515 P.2d 644, this Court settled the question of whether the statute defined one crime or two separate crimes. The defendant in Wise challenged his conviction under the statute for unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle by contending that the language specifically required \u201cthe vehicle [to] have been . . . possessed by the accused with the intent to procure or pass title to it[.]\u201d Id. \u00b6 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). We disagreed with the defendant\u2019s construction of the statute and held that the phrase \u201cwith intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d did not apply to the act of possession of a stolen vehicle. Id. Accordingly, this Court explained, the \u201cstatute defines two separate crimes: (1) taking, receiving, or transferring possession of a vehicle with knowledge or reason to believe it is stolen and with intent to procure or pass title, and (2) unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle.\u201d Id. \u00b6 3.\n{8} In 2009, the Legislature amended the language of the crime of receiving or transferring stolen vehicles or motor vehicles and recompiled the statute in the Criminal Code as Section 30-16D-4. The amended text of the statute after the Legislature\u2019s action reads:\nA. Receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle consists of a person who, with intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle or motor vehicle as defined by the Motor Vehicle Code [66-1-1 NMSA 1978] that the person knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken, receives or transfers possession of the vehicle or motor vehicle from or to another or who has in the person\u2019s possession any vehicle that the person knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken[.]\nSection 30-16D-4(A) (2009).\n{9} With the exception of a new subsection related to penalties, the 2009 amendments left the statute largely unchanged. See State v. Brown, 2010-NMCA-079, \u00b628 n.1, 148 N.M. 888, 242 P.3d 455 (stating that Section 30-16D-4 is \u201cessentially the same\u201d in its recompiled and amended form when compared to the previous version of the statute). Most notably for our purposes here, the Legislature removed the comma before the phrase \u201cor who has in the person\u2019s possession any vehicle that the person knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken[.]\u201d Compare Section 30-16D-4 and Section 66-3-505. Defendant argues that the Legislature\u2019s deletion of the comma eliminated the separate and distinct offense of unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle delineated under the statute prior to 2009 and established by this Court in Wise. We disagree.\n{10} According to Defendant\u2019s interpretation, the comma previously functioned to separate the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle from the offense of receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle. Defendant claims that, by discarding the comma, the Legislature intended to graft the mens rea requirement of \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d onto the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle. Defendant concludes that this mens rea requirement, which previously applied only to receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle, now equally applies to the actus reus element of possession of a stolen vehicle. Defendant therefore argues that the jury instructions given at trial were an incorrect statement of the law because they have not been updated to reflect the statutory change. We believe that Defendant overstates the significance of the Legislature\u2019s removal of the comma.\n{11} Reading the statute as a whole, our review of the 2009 amendments indicates that the Legislature did not make substantive changes that materially affect the statute in the manner Defendant suggests. See New Mexico Pharm. Ass\u2019n v. State, 1987-NMSC-054, \u00b6 8, 106 N.M. 73, 738 P.2d 1318 (\u201cIn interpreting statutes, we should read the entire statute as a whole so that each provision may be considered in relation to every other part.\u201d). Primarily, the Legislature inserted the phrase \u201c[receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle consists of\u2019 to the beginning of the statute\u2019s provisions. The Legislature further clarified that the vehicles or motor vehicles referenced in the statute are those \u201cdefined by the Motor Vehicle Code[.]\u201d Although the Legislature also added a new subsection to the statute that increases the penalties for each offense under the statute, the amendments to Section 30-16D-4(A) demonstrate that the Legislature sought to clarify the statute\u2019s text rather than change existing law. See Pi\u00f1a v. Gruy Petroleum Mgmt. Co., 2006-NMCA-063, \u00b6 22, 139 N.M. 619, 136 P.3d 1029 (\u201c[T]he [Legislature can amend an existing law for clarification purposes just as effectively and certainly as for purposes of change.\u201d (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). We decline to adopt Defendant\u2019s interpretation that a small punctuation revision is a clear signal of legislative intent to nullify the precedent set forth in Wise and effect a substantial change in the mens rea requirement applicable to the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle. See Citation Bingo, Ltd. v. Otten, 1996-NMSC-003, \u00b6 21, 121 N.M. 205, 910 P.2d 281 (\u201c[When interpreting a statute] we presume that the [Legislature was aware of existing statutory and common law and did not intend to enact a law inconsistent with existing law.\u201d).\n{12} Our conclusion is reinforced by certain principles of statutory construction. First, the lack of a comma before the phrase \u201cor who has in the person\u2019s possession any vehicle\u201d is not dispositive because the Legislature\u2019s use of the word \u201cor\u201d indicates that a person who possesses a stolen vehicle is independent from \u201ca person who, with intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle . . . receives or transfers possession of the vehicle}.]\u201d Section 30-16D-4(A). \u201cAs a rule of construction, the word \u2018or\u2019 should be given its normal disjunctive meaning unless the context of a statute demands otherwise.\u201d Wilson v. Denver, 1998-NMSC-016, \u00b6 17, 125 N.M. 308, 961 P.2d 153 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, under the doctrine of last antecedent, we believe that the phrase \u201cwith intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d applies to a person who receives or transfers a stolen vehicle and that the Legislature did not intend to apply the phrase to a person \u201cwho has in the person\u2019s possession any vehicle}.]\u201d Section 30-16D-4(A); see In re Goldsworthy's Estate, 1941-NMSC-036, \u00b6 21, 45 N.M. 406, 115 P.2d 627 (\u201c}R]elative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote.\u201d).\n{13} We conclude that the statute\u2019s language is plain and unambiguous. Accordingly, we disagree with Defendant\u2019s interpretation of the statute and hold that the \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d is not an essential element of the crime of possession of a stolen vehicle, which is a separate and distinct offense under Section 30-16D-4(A). The jury instructions accurately followed the language of the statute and contained all the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, the jury instructions were appropriate as given. State v. Gunzelman, 1973-NMSC-055, \u00b6 26, 85 N.M. 295, 512 P.2d 55 (holding that \u201cinstructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language\u201d), overruled on other grounds by State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, \u00b6 7, 113 N.M. 780, 833 P.2d 1146.\nSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE\n{14} Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions by employing the same statutory interpretation argument he used to attack the jury instructions. Defendant argues that because the \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d is an essential element of the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under the statute, the State failed to present evidence sufficient to prove this essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. Having decided \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d is not an essential element of the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under Section 30-16D-4(A), we conclude that Defendant\u2019s sufficiency of evidence argument is without merit. \u201cThe sufficiency of the evidence is assessed against the jury instructions because they become the law of the case.\u201d State v. Quinones, 2011-NMCA-018, \u00b6 38, 149 N.M. 294, 248 P.3d 336.\nDOUBLE JEOPARDY\n{15} Defendant next contends that his four convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects \u201ccriminal defendants] against multiple punishments for the same offense.\u201d Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, \u00b6 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A double jeopardy claim is a question of law that we review de novo. Id.\n{16} Double jeopardy challenges implicate two general categories of multiple-punishment cases. First, cases in which a defendant\u2019s single course of conduct results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes are classified as \u201cdouble-description\u201d cases. Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043, \u00b6 9, 112 N.M. 3, 810 P.2d 1223. Second, cases in which a defendant faces multiple charges under the same criminal statute for the same conduct are classified as \u201cunit of prosecution\u201d cases. Id. \u00b6 8. Defendant advances a unit of prosecution claim by arguing that his four convictions based on a single statute violate the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. He asserts that his possession of the four stolen vehicles constitutes a single course of conduct that is punishable as only one violation of the criminal statute.\n{17} Unit ofprosecution cases are subject to a two-step analysis that courts utilize to discern legislative intent. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, \u00b6 33. \u201cThe relevant inquiry in [a unit of prosecution case] is whether the [legislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.\u201d Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043, \u00b6 8. In the first step of the analysis, we look to the language of the criminal statute to determine whether the Legislature has defined the unit of prosecution. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, \u00b6 33. Our inquiry is complete if the unit of prosecution is spelled out in the statute. Id. However, if the language is ambiguous, we proceed to the second step of the analysis in which our task is to \u201cdetermine whether a defendant\u2019s acts are separated by sufficient \u2018indicia of distinctness\u2019 to justify multiple punishments under the same statute.\u201d State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, \u00b6 14, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289. If there is not sufficient indicia of distinctness to separate the defendant\u2019s acts, we apply the rule of lenity to our interpretation of the statute. Id. The rule of lenity requires that we interpret the statute in the defendant\u2019s favor by invoking the presumption that the Legislature did not intend to create separately punishable offenses. State v. Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, \u00b6 34, 130 N.M. 464, 27 P.3d 456.\nStatutory Language of Section 30-16D-4(A)\n{18} We now examine the statute for the crime of receiving or transferring stolen vehicles or motor vehicles. Section 30-16D-4(A) provides that \u201c[Receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle consists of a person ... who has in the person\u2019s possession any vehicle that the person knows or has reason to believe has been stolen or unlawfully taken].]\u201d From our review of the language and history of Section 30-16D-4, it is unambiguous that the Legislature intended the meaning of \u201cvehicle\u201d to refer to the Motor Vehicle Code\u2019s definition of the term. See Maestas v. Zager, 2007-NMSC-003, \u00b6 12, 141 N.M. 154, 152 P.3d 141 (\u201cWhen construing a statute, we read the entire statute as a whole, considering provisions in relation to one another.\u201d). The Motor Vehicle Code\u2019s definition of \u201cvehicle\u201d encompasses numerous different types of vehicles and motor vehicles. The statutory language, however, does not provide clear guidance as to whether the specific type of vehicle unlawfully possessed may constitute the proper unit of prosecution for multiple violations. The statute is also silent as to whether the number of vehicles unlawfully possessed by a defendant may be charged as separate offenses. We follow the reasoning expressed in recent unit of prosecution cases by this Court and our Supreme Court that have found the use of the word \u201cany\u201d unconvincing to resolve whether the Legislature intended to allow multiple units of prosecution under a statute. See State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, \u00b6 33, 139 N.M. 211, 131 P.3d 61 (discussing that the tampering with evidence statute\u2019s use of the word \u201cany\u201d was not persuasive in determining the Legislature\u2019s intent regarding the proper unit of prosecution); see also State v. Olsson, 2014-NMSC-012, \u00b6 21 324 P.3d 1230 (discussing that the possession of child pornography statute\u2019s use of the word \u201cany\u201d was not persuasive in determining the Legislature\u2019s intent regarding proper unit of prosecution).\n{19} Therefore, because ambiguity regarding the proper unit of prosecution under the statute persists, we now turn to the second step in our analysis to determine whether Defendant\u2019s acts are sufficiently distinct.\nDistinctness of Defendant\u2019s Acts\n{20} Defendant argues that his possession of the four stolen vehicles constituted only one violation of the statute because the snowmobile, the Polaris ATV, and the Honda ATV were contained inside the enclosed trailer and \u201cdelivered simultaneously, as one item.\u201d We note that the trial record fails to support Defendant\u2019s assertion that the snowmobile and the two ATVs were contained inside the trailer simultaneously. Nevertheless, on this premise, Defendant urges us to extend application of the \u201csingle-larceny doctrine\u201d to the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under Section 30-16D-4(A). The single-larceny doctrine provides that \u201cthe stealing of property from different owners at the same time and the same place constitutes only one larceny.\u201d State v. Brown, 1992-NMCA-028, \u00b6 6, 113 N.M. 631, 830 P.2d 183. \u201c[T]he doctrine is a canon of construction used when the Legislature\u2019s intent regarding multiple punishments is ambiguous.\u201d State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, \u00b6 43, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699.\n{21} We decline to extend the single-larceny doctrine to this case. Even though our courts have recognized the validity of the single-larceny doctrine, see Brown, 1992-NMCA-028, \u00b6\u00b6 6, 13 (recognizing the validity of the single-larceny doctrine in New Mexico), we see no indication that the doctrine supersedes the well-established two-step legislative intent inquiry in a unit of prosecution case. Defendant\u2019s reliance on State v. Watkins, 2008-NMCA-060, 144 N.M. 66, 183 P.3d 951, as evidence of our application of the doctrine in a unit of prosecution case, is misplaced. In Watkins, we followed the holding of Alvarez-Lopez and held the single-larceny doctrine was inapplicable to a unit of prosecution analysis under the receiving stolen property statute. Watkins, 2008-NMCA-060, \u00b6 11. Our courts have similarly declined to extend the single-larceny doctrine to determinations of the proper unit of prosecution for other statutory crimes. See e.g., Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, \u00b6 30 (declining to extend the single-larceny doctrine to determine the unit of prosecution for the crime of robbery); State v. Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, \u00b6 29, 137 N.M. 92, 107 P.3d 532 (declining to extend the single-larceny doctrine to determine the unit of prosecution for the crime of fraud); State v. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, \u00b6 26, 127 N.M. 763, 987 P.2d 420 (declining to extend the single-larceny doctrine to determine the unit of prosecution for the crime of defacing tombs). Additionally, the single-larceny doctrine by its own definition refers to the taking of property, and application of the single-larceny doctrine is inappropriate in this case because the jury was not required to find that Defendant actually unlawfully took the vehicles.\n{22} In support of his argument for extension of the single-larceny doctrine to possession of a stolen vehicle, Defendant cites Sanchez v. State for the proposition that \u201c[t]he simultaneous possession of stolen items owned by different individuals is a single act constituting one offense.\u201d 1982-NMSC-012, \u00b6 10, 97 N.M. 445, 640 P.2d 1325. Although we recognize Sanchez\u2019s general rule regarding simultaneous possession, Sanchez was decided prior to Swafford and was not a unit of prosecution case. For these reasons, we decline to depart from \u201cthe proper framework for determining legislative intent\u201d set forth in Swafford. Watkins, 2008-NMCA-060, \u00b6 18; see State v. Travarez, 1983-NMCA-003, \u00b6 5, 99 N.M. 309, 657 P.2d 636 (\u201cThe Court of Appeals must follow applicable precedents of our Supreme Court, but in appropriate situations we may consider whether Supreme Court precedent is applicable.\u201d). Instead, we adhere to the traditional indicia of distinctness analysis, which \u201camounts to a canon of construction\u201d designed to ascertain legislative intent. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, \u00b6 11.\n{23} Herron v. State, 1991-NMSC-012, 111 N.M. 357, 805 P.2d 624, established the unit of prosecution indicia of distinctness \u201cunder the modern analysis.\u201d Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, \u00b6 15. Although Herron\u2019s factors were developed in the context of a sexual assault case, our courts have generally applied Herron\u2019s six factor test in a broad range of unit of prosecution cases. See, e.g., Brown, 1992-NMCA-028, \u00b6\u00b6 6-13 (applying the Herron test to multiple convictions for larceny); State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042, \u00b6\u00b6 19-27, 120 N.M. 38, 897 P.2d 225 (applying the Herron test to multiple convictions for assault); State v. Barr, 1999-NMCA-081, \u00b6\u00b6 16-23, 127 N.M. 504, 984 P.2d 185 (applying the Herron test to multiple convictions of contributing to the delinquency of a minor); Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, \u00b6\u00b6 19-26 (applying the Herron test to multiple convictions for defacing tombs); Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, \u00b6\u00b6 21-27 (applying the Herron test to multiple convictions for fraud); DeGraff 2006-NMSC-011, \u00b6\u00b6 35-38 (applying the Herron test to multiple convictions for tampering with evidence); Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, \u00b6\u00b6 20-21 (applying the Herron test to multiple convictions for attempted robbery). The Herron test consists of the following six factors: \u201c(1) temporal proximity of the acts; (2) location of the victim(s) during each act; (3) existence of an intervening event; (4) sequencing of acts; (5) defendant\u2019s intent as evidenced by his conduct and utterances; and (6) the number of victims.\u201d Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, \u00b6 21 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n{24} In considering the application of the unit of prosecution indicia of distinctness analysis to Defendant\u2019s acts, we are mindful of our Supreme Court\u2019s recent opinion in Olsson. Olsson was the first unit of prosecution case in which our courts considered application of the Herron factors to a possessory offense. The two defendants in Olsson claimed their multiple convictions for possession of child pornography violated double jeopardy. 2014-NMSC-012, \u00b6\u00b6 5, 9. Our Supreme Court was unable to discern the unit of prosecution from the language of the statute, which criminalizes the intentional possession of \u201cany obscene visual or print medium\u201d if the accused \u201cknows or has reason to know that one or more of the participants [depicted in the medium] is a child under eighteen years of age.\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 19, 23; NMSA 1978, Section 30-6A-3(A) (2007). In the second step of its analysis, the Court found \u201cproblemas] with attempts to determine whether conduct in a child pornography possession case is distinct under Herron[,]\u201d stating that cases of unlawful possession \u201cdo not so neatly fit the Herron mold because it is unclear when each of the factors would apply and the factors are inconclusive when they do apply.\u201d Olsson, 2014-NMSC-012, \u00b6 39. In particular, the Court emphasized the impracticality of applying the Herron factors because Herron is \u201cspecifically tailored to a case where a defendant has direct contact with a victim.\u201d Id. The conduct in question included possession of computer files containing multiple images and videos, some of which were created or downloaded on separate occasions and stored on an external hard drive. Id. \u00b6 9. Explaining that Herron did not apply, the Court reasoned that application of the Herron factors to a defendant\u2019s download or viewing of an image was uncertain. Id. \u00b6 39. The Court noted that \u201c[i]t is difficult to ascertain a defendant\u2019s intent at the time\u201d the images are downloaded or viewed, that \u201c[t]he location of the victim during a download or viewing is not relevanty \u201d and that \u201c[t]he number of victims could possibly be established, but the circumstance of multiple victims can exist from possession of a single videotape or a single computer diskette[.]\u201d Id. The Court found that the analysis was further complicated because \u201cdownload dates are not included in the statutory language nor alluded to in the purpose and history.\u201d Id. \u00b6 42. As a result, in concluding that the defendants could only be charged with one count of possession of child pornography, the Court held \u201cthat the Herron factors are not applicable in possession cases and that the indicia of distinctness factors do not determine the unit of prosecution.\u201d Id.\n{25} We read Olsson to preclude the use of the Herron factors in possession cases due to the \u201cimpracticability\u201d of its application in determining the proper unit of prosecution. Id. However, we do not believe that Olsson\u2019s abandonment of Herron\u2019s fixed formula requires a wholesale departure from an indicia of distinctness analysis if the facts of a unit of prosecution case render such analysis practicable. See Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043, \u00b6 27 (\u201cThe conduct question depends to a large degree on the elements of the charged offenses and the facts presented at trial.\u201d). Our Supreme Court in Olsson faced the difficult question of whether the defendants\u2019 possession of numerous separate computer files and dozens of images and videos, which were downloaded at various times and depicted multiple victims and sexual acts, constituted separate offenses. In this case, Defendant\u2019s unlawful possession of four stolen vehicles presents a significantly different factual scenario and crime from that in Olsson. Our task is to discern whether Defendant\u2019s acts of possession of a trailer, a snowmobile, and two AT Vs are sufficiently distinct to justify four convictions for possession of a stolen vehicle. Because the situation presented here is decidedly less complex, we next consider whether suitable indicia of distinctness may be applied to determine whether Defendant committed four distinct acts of possession punishable under the same statute.\n{26} In the absence of Herron\u2019s factors, we look to the \u201cguiding principles\u201d previously set forth by our Supreme Court in Swafford in determining whether Defendant\u2019s acts are sufficiently distinct to justify multiple punishments under a single statute. Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043, \u00b6 27. Even though Swafford was a double description case, the analysis in a unit of prosecution case is \u201csubstantially similar[.]\u201dBernal, 2006-NMSC-050, \u00b6 16. \u201cIn each case, we attempt to determine, based upon the specific facts of each case, whether a defendant\u2019s activity is better characterized as one unitary act, or multiple, distinct acts, consistent with legislative intent.\u201d Id. Swafford noted that acts may be \u201csufficiently separated by either time or space (in the sense of physical distance between the places where the acts occurred)[.j\u201d 1991-NMSC-043, \u00b6 28. If a case cannot be resolved from time and space considerations, then \u201cresortmustbe had to the quality and nature of the acts or to the objects and results involved.\u201d Id. We therefore employ these general principles in fashioning an indicia of distinctness analysis under Section 30-16D-4(A).\n{27} We first examine time and space considerations to determine whether Defendant\u2019s possession ofthe enclosed trailer, the snowmobile, the Polaris ATV, and the Honda ATV constituted four distinct acts. The question is whether there was evidence that Defendant, knowing that the vehicles were stolen, possessed each vehicle at a separate location and time sufficient to justify multiple punishments. The jury heard evidence that Defendant and Spinnichia entered New Mexico from Colorado in possession of the stolen trailer, the snowmobile, and the Polaris ATV, which Defendant and Spinnichia took to Murch\u2019s home in Aztec, New Mexico. The jury also heard evidence that the snowmobile was removed from the trailer and that Defendant rode the Polaris ATV while at Murch\u2019 s property. Although witness testimony further indicated that Defendant rode the Honda ATV at Murch\u2019s property during the same time period, there was also evidence that the Honda ATV had been stolen from a home in San Juan County, New Mexico. However, evidence of the separate theft of the Honda ATV is not probative of Defendant\u2019s distinct acts because the trial record does not clearly indicate who took the Honda ATV to Murch\u2019s property and when it was taken there. The jury could reasonably infer from Spinnichia\u2019s testimony that Defendant possessed the trailer, the snowmobile, and the Polaris ATV prior to possessing the Honda ATV, but Murch\u2019s testimony suggested that all four vehicles arrived on his property at the same time. The jury was instructed to return guilty verdicts if it found that Defendantpossessed each vehicle and knew or had reason to know that the vehicle was stolen. It was not instructed to consider whether Defendant possessed the vehicles at separate times and locations. Moreover, law enforcement officers testified that they recovered all four vehicles from the same location, specifically finding the Honda ATV inside the enclosed trailer parked on Murch\u2019s property. Thus, based on the indicia of time and space, we conclude that the evidence fails to establish that Defendant\u2019s conduct was four distinct acts. Consequently, we must resort to Swafford\u2019s remaining guiding principles.\n{28} We believe that the objects and results involved in this case are sufficient indicators thatDefendant\u2019s possession of each stolen vehicle constitutes four distinct acts. In applying these indicia, we \u201cmay inquire as to the interests protected by the criminal statute, since the ultimate goal is to determine whether the [Legislature intended multiple punishments.\u201d Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, \u00b6 14. The objects possessed by Defendant are subject to broad regulation by the State under a highly specific statutory scheme found in the Motor Vehicle Code and the Criminal Code. With limited exceptions, the Motor Vehicle Code\u2019s vehicle registration requirements mandate that \u201cevery motor vehicle, manufactured home, trailer, semitrailer and pole trailer when driven or moved upon a highway ... is subject to the registration and certificate of title provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code[.j\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-3-1 (A) (2013). Off-highway motor vehicles, such as snowmobiles and side-by-side AT Vs, are also subject to registration requirements under the Motor Vehicle Code\u2019s provisions, including the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Act (OHMVA), NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 66-3-1001 to - 1020 (1978, as amended through 2009). Vehicle owners who fail to comply with these registration requirements may be subject to criminal penalties. \u00a7 66-3-1 (C); \u00a7 66-3-1020. Protection of personal property interests in vehicles is one of the primary purposes of this statutory design.\n{29} The Motor Vehicle Code requires owners to register their vehicles so they may be uniquely identified and tracked in a centralized system. Every owner of a vehicle for which registration is required must apply to the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department \u201cfor the registration and issuance of a certificate of title for the vehicle[.]\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-3-4(A) (2007). The application must include the following detailed information:\n[A] description of the vehicle including, to the extent that the following specified data may exist with respect to a given vehicle, the make, model, type of body, number of cylinders, type of fuel used, serial number of the vehicle, odometer reading, engine or other identification number provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle, whether new or used and, if a vehicle not previously registered, date of sale by the manufacturer or dealer to the person intending to operate the vehicle}.]\nSection 66-3-4(A)(2). If a vehicle has never been registered in New Mexico but was registered in another state, the vehicle must be \u201cexamined and inspected [by MVD personnel] for its identification number or engine number[.]\u201d Section 66-3-4(B). Additionally, a registration application for a vehicle purchased from a dealer in New Mexico or another state \u201cshall be accompanied by a manufacturer\u2019s certif\u00edcate of origin duly assigned by the dealer to the purchaser.\u201d Section 66-3-4(C). Upon receipt of an application for a vehicle that has never been registered, the MVD is required to \u201cfirst check the engine or other standard identification number provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle shown in the application against its own records [and] the records of the national crime information center.\u201dNMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-3-8 (2004). The MVD also \u201cmay refuse, suspend or revoke registration or issuance of a certificate of title or a transfer of registration\u201d if \u201cthe division has a reasonable ground to believe that the vehicle is a stolen or embezzled vehicle or the granting of registration or the issuance of a certificate of title would constitute a fraud against the rightful owner or other person having valid lien upon the vehicle[.]\u201dNMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-3-7(D) (2004). Accord \u00a7 66-3-1006(A) (providing that MVD may refuse registration or issuance of a certificate of title or any transfer of a registration certificate for an off-highway motor vehicle on same grounds). Evidence of registration validated by MVD \u201cshall be exhibited upon demand of any police officer[,]\u201d NMSA 1978, Section 66-3-13(A) (2013), a certificate of title issued by MVD is \u201cprima facie evidence of the ownership of the vehicle},]\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-3-12 (1978), and owners must display registration plates and validating stickers on their vehicles. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-3-14(A) (1995). The Motor Vehicle Code also contains extensive statutory provisions that delineate separate registration requirements that apply when an owner sells, transfers, or assigns title to the owner\u2019s vehicle to another person. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 66-3-101 to -127 (1978, as amended through 2013). We are persuaded by this statutory language that the Legislature intended to prevent and combat illicit trafficking in stolen vehicles by instituting a vehicle registration system that maintains a history of individual vehicle ownership, requires distinct identifiers be assigned and affixed to vehicles, and monitors the transfer of vehicles from other states and between owners.\n{30} Likewise, the Legislature crafted provisions of the Criminal Code that operate in tandem with the Motor Vehicle Code to punish criminal conduct that infringes on personal property interests in vehicles. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 30-16D-1 to -3 (2009) (prohibiting the unlawful taking of a vehicle or motor vehicle, embezzlement of a vehicle or motor vehicle, and misappropriating a vehicle or motor vehicle by fraud); see also NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 30-16D-5 to -6 (2009) (prohibiting injuring or tampering with a motor vehicle and unlawful altering or changing of vehicle engine numbers). The statute at issue in this case is part of that statutory framework and protects interests and achieves policy objectives that are different from the provisions criminalizing the retention of generic property. Compare \u00a7 30-16D-4 with NMSA 1978, \u00a7 30-16-11(C)(2) (2006) (prohibiting the retention of \u201cany property acquired by theft, larceny, fraud, embezzlement, robbery or armed robbery.\u201d). The Legislature sought to address the harm inflicted on the public by a particularized type of criminal enterprise: vehicle theft. Because Section 30-16D-4 appears designed to protect the public from the trafficking of stolen vehicles, it follows that the Legislature intended to allow for separate charges for each stolen vehicle separately possessed by an individual. See Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, \u00b6 19 (\u201cThe unit of prosecution may be based on the nature of the thing taken.\u201d).\n{31} Analyzing Defendant\u2019s case in light of the clear interests protected by the criminal statute, the indicia of \u201cobjects and results\u201d sufficiently separate Defendant\u2019s acts of possession. Defendant received four convictions for possession of four separate and distinct stolen vehicles: an enclosed trailer, a snowmobile, a Polaris side-by-side ATV, and a Honda side-by-side ATY. The jury found that each vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken and Defendant knew or had reason to know that the vehicles had been stolen. Under these circumstances, the indicia of distinctness justify convicting Defendant of four counts under Section 30-16D-4(A).\nINEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL\n{32} Finally, Defendant argues that his trial counsel failed to meet the constitutional standards of effective assistance under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendant makes multiple ineffective assistance of counsel claims, specifically that trial counsel (1) failed to object to jury instructions that omitted an essential element of the crime of receiving or transferring stolen motor vehicles, (2) failed to articulate in his motion for directed verdict that the State failed to present any evidence that Defendant received the stolen vehicles with the intent to procure or pass title, (3) failed to subpoena crucial witnesses, (4) failed to consult Defendant in the preparation of his defense, and (5) failed to effectively confront the witnesses against him through cross examination, including a police officer who testified at trial about his interview of Defendant.\n{33} We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. State v. Martinez, 2007-NMCA-160, \u00b6 19, 143 N.M. 96, 173 P.3d 18. In order to make a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant must show \u201c(1) that counsel\u2019s performance fell below that of a reasonably competent attorney and (2) that [the defendant was prejudiced by the deficient performance.\u201d Id. \u201cA defendant must demonstrate that counsel\u2019s errors were so serious that the result of the proceeding would have been different.\u201d State v. Gallegos, 2009-NMSC-017, \u00b6 34, 146 N.M. 88, 206 P.3d 993.\n{34} Defendanthas failed to make aprima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant\u2019s first two attacks on trial counsel\u2019s performance are rooted in Defendant\u2019s unpersuasive interpretation of the statute codifying the crime of receiving or transferring stolen vehicles. Defendant argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed at trial to object to the jury instructions, which Defendant contends did not incorporate the essential element of \u201cintent to procure or pass title to a vehicle\u201d in the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under Section 30-16D-4(A). Similarly, Defendant also claims that trial counsel\u2019s motion for directed verdict was deficient due to his failure to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show that Defendant intended to procure or pass title to the stolen vehicles. Because we have expressly decided in this Opinion that the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under Section 30-16D-4(A) does not require the element of intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle, Defendant\u2019s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on these grounds fail.\n{35} Defendant also makes several general allegations related to trial counsel\u2019s conduct, including the failure to subpoena key witnesses, failure to effectively cross-examine witnesses, and failure to consult Defendant in the preparation of his defense. These types of arguments call into question matters of defense counsel\u2019s trial strategy and tactics, which \u201cwe will not second guess\u201d on appeal. State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, \u00b6 56, 327 P.3d 1076 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cWe do not find ineffective assistance of counsel if there is a plausible, rational trial strategy or tactic to explain counsel\u2019s conduct.\u201d State v. Allen, 2014-NMCA-047, \u00b6 17, 323 P.3d 925. In addition, despite the strong presumption in favor of trial counsel\u2019s competency, Defendant in his brief in chief did not provide detailed explanations or record citations to support his allegations that trial counsel\u2019s performance was deficient or prejudiced him. We decline to review or consider Defendant\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments when they are unsupported and purely speculative. See id. \u00b6 18 (declining to review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where \u201cthe necessary facts and arguments are not sufficiently developed [by defendant] for review or proper consideration\u201d); see also Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, \u00b6 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (\u201cWe will not review unclear arguments, or guess at what [a party's] arguments might be.\u201d).\n{36} Although we hold that Defendant has failed to make aprima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, he is not precluded from pursuing these issues in a collateral habeas corpus proceeding. See State v. Crocco, 2014-NMSC-016, \u00b6 24, 327 P.3d 1068 (noting that \u201c[i]f facts beyond those in the record on appeal could establish a legitimate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [a defendant may assert it in a habeas corpus proceeding where an adequate factual record can be developed for a court to make a reasoned determination of the issues\u201d).\nCONCLUSION\n{37} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm D efendant\u2019 s four convictions forpossessionof the stolen enclosed trailer, the snowmobile, the Polaris ATV, and the Honda ATV, contrary to Section 30-16D-4(A).\n{38} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nJAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge\nWE CONCUR:\nCYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge\nJ. MILES HANISEE, Judge\nNMSA 1978, Section 66-1-4.19 (B) (2005) defines \u201cvehicle\u201d as \u201cevery' device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway].]\u201d A \u201cmotor vehicle\u201d is defined as \u201cevery vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from batteries].]\u201d NMSA 1978, Section 66-1-4.11(H) (2007). State v. Richardson, 1992-NMCA-041, \u00b6 5, 113 N.M. 740, 832 P.2d 801 (\u201c[A] \u2018motor vehicle\u2019 is but a subset or subgroup of the larger category \u2018vehicle\u2019].]\u201d); cf. State v. Natoni, 2012-NMCA-062, \u00b6 14, 282 P.3d 769 (holding that an ATV qualifies as a \u201cvehicle\u201d for purposes of Section 66-1-4.19(B) and the Motor Vehicle Code\u2019s DWI statute, NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-8-102(A) (2010)).\nSanchez involved a trial court\u2019s dismissal of an indictment alleging the defendants \u201creceived, retained or disposed of 72 different items that belonged to four separate parties.\u201d 1982-NMSC-012, \u00b6 2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).The indictment combined the charges into one count, enhancing the crime to a third degree felony. The Court held that the indictment was \u201cextremely vague\u201d and failed \u201cto inform the defendants of the nature of the charge so that surprise is avoided.\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 14-15.\nUJI 14-1652. Thejury was also instructed that \u201c[a] person is in possession of [a vehicle] when, on the occasion in question, he knows what it is, he knows it is on his person or in his presence and he exercises control over it.\u201d UJI 14-130. This instruction also provides that \u201c[e]ven if the object is not in his physical presence, he is in possession if he knows what it is and where it is and he exercises control over it.\u201d Id.\nSee \u00a7 66-3-1001.1(E) (defining an \u201coff-highway motor vehicle\u201d); see also \u00a7 66-3-1(A) (providing that \u201cevery off-highway motor vehicle is subject to the registration and certificate oftitle provisions ofthe Motor Vehicle Code\u201d unless certain exceptions apply); see also \u00a7 66-3-1003 (\u201cUnless exempted from the provisions of the [OHMVA], a person shall not operate an off-highway motor vehicle unless the off-highway motor vehicle has been registered in accordance with Chapter 66, Article 3 NMSA 1978.\u201d).", "type": "majority", "author": "WECHSLER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General", "Santa Fe, NM", "M. Anne Kelly, Assistant Attorney General", "Albuquerque, NM", "for Appellee", "Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender", "Nicole S. Murray, Assistant Appellate Defender", "Mary Barlcet, Assistant Appellate Defender", "Santa Fe, NM", "for Appellant" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2015-NMCA-089\nFiling Date: June 23, 2015\nDocket No. 33,287\nSTATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC BERNARD, Defendant-Appellant.\nHector H. Balderas, Attorney General\nSanta Fe, NM\nM. Anne Kelly, Assistant Attorney General\nAlbuquerque, NM\nfor Appellee\nJorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender\nNicole S. Murray, Assistant Appellate Defender\nMary Barlcet, Assistant Appellate Defender\nSanta Fe, NM\nfor Appellant" }, "file_name": "0440-01", "first_page_order": 456, "last_page_order": 470 }