SANTA FE — The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld the first‑degree murder conviction of Ruben Benavidez for the 2022 shooting death of Cedric Guzman in Albuquerque, concluding that jurors had enough evidence to find Benavidez acted with willful, deliberate intent despite his claim that he was provoked.
The unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Julie J. Vargas, traces a tense morning that began with Benavidez—then 17—and his younger sister looking for their mother. They called their father for help, then tracked her to Guzman’s apartment. When the father knocked, Guzman closed the door without answering. Benavidez stepped forward, kicked the door twice, and confronted Guzman as he came outside. After an exchange of words, Guzman spat at the teen. Benavidez fired twice from a handgun concealed in his hoodie pocket, and Guzman stumbled back inside, mortally wounded.
Investigators later recovered the gun and the hoodie—hidden in an apartment where Benavidez went after the shooting. The hoodie’s right pocket had a bullet hole, and shell casings matched the handgun, reinforcing the state’s account of how the shots were fired from inside the garment. A security camera captured the encounter, giving jurors a frame‑by‑frame record of the lead‑up and the shooting itself.
Benavidez’s appeal centered on intent. He argued he acted in the heat of the moment after being provoked. The justices disagreed. Pointing to his actions before and during the confrontation—kicking the door, checking the gun, trading insults, and telling Guzman to “do something”—the Court said jurors could reasonably infer a deliberate decision to kill, not a rash impulse.
The ruling wasn’t a clean sweep for prosecutors. The Court vacated one of two evidence‑tampering convictions, finding that hiding the weapon and the hoodie amounted to a single episode, and punishing it twice would violate double‑jeopardy protections. Still, the core convictions stood.
Sentencing—and what comes after—was another key piece of the decision. Benavidez received 30 years in prison, with eight years suspended. Although he was a serious youthful offender and did not receive a life sentence, the Court held that he must serve a five‑year period of parole when he is released. In doing so, the justices clarified a question that hadn’t previously come before them: for a serious youthful offender convicted of first‑degree murder, the five‑year parole term applies even if the prison sentence is mitigated below life. The Court noted that New Mexico law classifies first‑degree murder as a capital felony, and that classification—not the length of the sentence—controls the parole period.
With the high court’s decision in place, Benavidez’s case returns to district court for any proceedings consistent with the ruling. His prison term remains intact, one tampering count is set aside, and the five‑year parole requirement is settled law for cases like his going forward.
