Adrian Hedden
Carlsbad Current-Argus
achedden@currentargus.com

Sentenced to life in prison

Acadio Lucero gazed stoically toward the 12 jurors who found him guilty of first-degree murder on Friday, June 6, for shooting a man during a 2023 argument outside the Artesia Police Department.

Minutes later, he was sentenced to life in prison – the mandatory sentence for the charge under New Mexico law. Lucero will be eligible for parole in 30 years.

The verdict followed a four-day trial held at Fifth Judicial District Court in Carlsbad.

Lucero, 24, was accused of shooting Mark Rommel, 42, on Oct. 12, 2023 in the parking lot of the Artesia Public Safety Complex, which houses the city police and fire departments. The facility also serves as a location for “custody exchanges” when estranged couples pick up their children from one another.

Such an exchange brought Lucero and Rommel, along with Jahnika Guajardo, the mother of Rommel’s infant child who Lucero was dating, to the parking lot where the shooting took place.

Police said Lucero retrieved a handgun from his truck, firing at Rommel 12 times and hitting him three times including a fatal shot to the head.

Rommel’s mother Linda Dobbins read a statement to Lucero ahead of sentencing, describing the “ripple effect” her son’s death had on her family. She said she was at the scene of the shooting, and watched her son die.

Dobbins was called to testify in the trial and contended Rommel made no physical threat to Lucero to justify the shooting.

“He wanted nothing more than to live a good life. It was a dream that was stolen when Acadio took his life,” Dobbins said. “I witnessed my son’s murder. I don’t sleep, and when I do I have nightmares.”

Rommel’s younger brother James Dobbins also gave a statement before Lucero was sentenced, calling Lucero a “coward” and “evil.”

“You took away my brother that day,” James Dobbins said. “I know what it was like to be around my brother. I know he was scary. But you chose to gun him down instead of fighting him.”

Before issuing the sentence, Finger said the incident that claimed Rommel’s life was “very unfortunate” and “should not have happened.”

A ‘show of force’

During closing arguments ahead of the jury’s two-hour deliberation, prosecutor Ariane Gonzales recapped the events leading to Rommel’s death, describing how the two men met in the parking lot, and how they moved through the area during the argument and shooting.

She said the conflict began at a nearby medical center where Rommel brought the child, who was suffering from COVID-19 symptoms. Gonzales said Lucero was not present at the medical center but was called by Guajardo, who was with Rommel at the center at some point during an argument that arose between the parents.

Gonzales said Lucero gathered his firearm and ammunition and drove first to the medical center and then to the public safety complex after a police officer recommended the arguing parties meet there for a “safe drop-off” of the child.

These acts by the defendant, Gonzales said, were proof of Lucero’s intent to kill Rommel.

“By the defendant’s own words, they were there as a ‘show of force,’” Gonzales said. “You get the idea of the tone the defendant wanted to create at this custody exchange.”

The prosecutor continued to narrate how Lucero allegedly shot and killed an unarmed Rommel and was witnessed in the act by Artesia police Sgt. Christopher Gallegos, who shot and injured Lucero during the incident. She said that while curse words were exchanged between the two men, the altercation did not get physical until Lucero opened fire.

“There are no actions that were seen by anyone that was there, or any evidence that was presented, that there was a gun on Mark Rommel or a knife. He (Lucero) never saw a weapon,” Gonzales said.

Defense attorney Raymond Conley countered that Lucero’s police interviews were consistent in that his client’s version of events indicated Rommel was threatening Lucero with physical violence, justifying the shooting.

Conley questioned the detectives’ tactics throughout the investigation as they told Lucero during interrogation that police had video evidence and multiple witnesses indicating the incident conflicted with the defendant’s statements.

No such evidence was presented at trial, argued Conley, who said police repeatedly lied to his client during the investigation. Conley said Lucero maintained that Rommel was much closer than the prosecution presented, physically threatening the defendant.

The defense attorney also questioned Sgt. Gallegos’ testimony that Lucero and Rommel were 20 feet apart when Lucero started shooting. Conley said that while Gallegos’ training as a police officer kicked in, adrenaline may have clouded the officer’s judgment as to the distance between the men.

“The issue is distance and position,” Conley said. “It’s reasonable to ask if Gallegos was as focused as he thought he was or saw what he thought he saw. What he (Lucero) is saying is the truth.”

Managing Editor Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, or @AdrianHedden on the social media platform X.