SANTA FE – The state Supreme Court today upheld an Albuquerque man’s convictions and sentence for the robbery and beating death of an elderly homeless man.

The Court unanimously rejected Nigel Johnson’s arguments that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that his punishment for first-degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Johnson was sentenced to life in prison. Felony murder is a killing that occurs during the commission of a felony.

According to evidence presented at trial, Johnson was among three young men who left an Albuquerque convenience store early in the morning of Aug. 10, 2016, crossed a street and then beat and robbed the victim, Irvin Sanchez.

Two eyewitnesses drove past at the time of the attack and one called police while the young men fled. Convenience store surveillance video footage store showed three men generally matching descriptions of the attackers. Johnson’s statement to police also corroborated much of the testimony by the eyewitnesses.

Johnson, however, said the young men found the victim unconscious on the ground and that one of his companions stole the elderly man’s money after searching his pockets.

“The jury was faced with this factual dispute and, in finding Defendant guilty, must have credited the eyewitnesses’ accounts and the State’s other evidence demonstrating that Defendant was present and participated in the attack,” the Court explained in an opinion written by Justice Barbara J. Vigil.

The Court concluded, “Defendant fails to establish that a rational jury could not have found that he was part of the group of young men who fatally attacked and robbed the victim. For this reason, we will not reverse Defendant’s convictions based on a lack of identity evidence.”

The justices said there was no double jeopardy violation – multiple punishments for the same offense – because Johnson’s conduct was separate for the conspiracy and the robbery related to   the felony murder.

“In this case, Defendant’s conduct in violation of the statutes at issue was not unitary because the conspiracy was complete before the robbery underlying the felony-murder conviction began,” the Court stated. “An agreement to commit a crime must necessarily precede the commission of that crime.”