and pushed the door shut when they tried to open it. The jury could have found that kidnapping was complete, but continuing, at that point. There was also testimony that Carlos and Daniel prevented Brown and Azure from leaving the apartment for at least an hour and a half and that they made Brown and Azure sit on the couch while they searched for the cocaine. This testimony is sufficient to support the kidnapping verdicts. {15} Moreover, the jury could reasonably have concluded that Brown and Azure were confined in the apartment by force or intimidation when Carlos told Brown and Azure that they couldn’t leave, yelled at them, and closed the door when they tried to leave, conduct that is independent of and distinct from Daniel’s wielding of the knife. See Urioste, 201 l-NMCA-121, ¶ 28 (<HOLDING>). Since the conduct underlying the two charges
holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits holding rule 1 ls factual inquiry requirement violated only when no factual basis for allegations holding that there was no unitary conduct where the jury could reasonably have inferred an independent factual basis for all three of the defendants convictions and stating that we do not secondguess the factual conclusions of a jury holding that based on the facts presented by the state and the defendants stipulation to the existence of a factual basis for his plea the court properly determined a factual basis for the plea existed holding that a court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged