This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. A-1-CA-37006 SAUL D. LICON, 6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Gary L. Clingman, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Templeman and Crutchfiled Barry Crutchfield Lovington, NM for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Judge.

18 {1} Saul Licon (Defendant) appeals from denial of his motion to reconsider sentence on double jeopardy grounds, following entry of an unconditional guilty plea and a judgment and sentence convicting him of three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon upon a peace officer, two counts of battery upon a peace officer, and driving with a revoked license. [RP 78, 95, 99, 104] We issued a notice proposing to affirm. [CN 1, 4] Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

5 {2} Defendant continues to argue his conduct constituted only one offense because the events occurred within seconds of each other, there were no intervening acts, each of the acts constituted swerving at or from police cars, each act involved the same intent by Defendant, and the three officers who were the victims were engaged in a combined effort to stop Defendant. [MIO 2-3] As set forth in our notice to Defendant, under State v. Olsson, 2014-NMSC-012, 324 P.3d 1230 and State v. Bernal, 2006- NMSC-050, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289, we conclude Defendant’s actions in sequentially swerving his vehicle toward each of the three officers—each of whom drove their own separate police vehicle—to be sufficiently distinct for double jeopardy purposes. We find Defendant’s argument his acts constituted a single offense unavailing. Therefore, we hold the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to reconsider his sentence on double jeopardy grounds. We further conclude Defendant’s argument also does not provide a basis for vacating his multiple convictions on double jeopardy grounds.

19 {3} Accordingly, we affirm.

1 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge WE CONCUR:

6 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

8 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge