Albuquerque teen convicted of killing woman trying to get her stolen car back
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – A 14-year-old is now a convicted murderer, for what he did two years ago, when he shot and killed a woman trying to get her stolen car back. However, because of his age, he can only be locked up for six years.
Story continues below
New Mexico Insiders: Leader Of Albuquerque FBI Steps Down
Trending: Family of 105-year-old Bataan Death March survivor shares his story
Crime: New Mexico correctional officer caught by husband for bringing drugs to inmate, court docs show
Community: Poll: Where is the best place to go camping in New Mexico?
Second-degree murder was the jury's verdict Wednesday in the case against 14-year-old Marcos Barela. Barela was on trial this week after being accused of murdering 23-year-old Sydney Wilson on July 31, 2023.
Wilson reported her car was stolen from her apartment complex to police, but when dispatch told her officers could only respond if the car remained stationary, she took things into her own hands. Wilson tracked her car using GPS.
Wilson eventually followed her car to the Smith's parking lot on Central Ave. and Coors Blvd. When she got there, she saw teens inside her car and confronted them. One of those teens, Barela, shot and killed Wilson.
'We have to put a stop to what's going on with this teen violence. It's getting out of control and out of hand, and I honestly feel like the teens are running our city. They're running our state,' Sydney's Sister Crystal Miller told KRQE outside of Children's Court on Wednesday.
Wilson's family described her as an artist with a great sense of humor. They said she was going to school for child psychology.
New Mexico law states the maximum penalty in Barela's case is a commitment to a juvenile facility until he is 21. Wilson's family is frustrated with the juvenile justice system and said the ones who pay the price are the victims and their families. 'Parents that allow a child to be out running amok at 9 o'clock at night and not know anything about it, they need to be held responsible too,' Sydney's mom, Deidra Wilson, told KRQE News 13.
Barela was facing a first-degree murder charge, but the jury opted for the lesser charge of second-degree murder. While Barela may only be held until he is 21, in New Mexico, an adult faces up to 18 years behind bars for second-degree murder.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A new front opens in the immigration battle: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, we have the latest on the fallout from a Democratic senator being forcibly removed from a Department of Homeland Security press conference. Plus, Jonathan Allen explains how the GOP's megabill would provide a boost to President Donald Trump's deportation agenda. Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here. — Adam Wollner Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was forcibly removed from a news conference in Los Angeles after trying to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference related to immigration, Rebecca Shabad and Jacob Soboroff report. It marked the latest escalation in the battle between President Donald Trump and Democrats over the administration's deportation plans and the protests that have broken out in response. The incident: 'I am Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla said to Noem, which prompted several men to physically push him out of the room. Padilla's office shared a video of the incident with NBC News that shows the senator being taken into a hallway outside and pushed face forward onto the ground as officers with FBI-identifying vests told the senator to put his hands behind his back. The officers then handcuffed him. Speaking to reporters later Thursday, Padilla said he was receiving a briefing from military officials when he learned Noem was in the same building and decided to join her briefing. 'If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country,' Padilla said. DHS responded on X, falsely claiming that Padilla 'interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself.' 'Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers' repeated commands,' DHS said, claiming that agents 'thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately. Secretary Noem met with Senator Padilla after and held a 15 minute meeting.' How Democrats responded: The incident provoked further outrage from Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., denounced the incident on the Senate floor. 'I just saw something that sickened my stomach — the manhandling of a United States senator. We need immediate answers to what the hell went on,' he said. Former Vice President Kamala Harris called the incident 'a shameful and stunning abuse of power.' How the GOP responded: Meanwhile, Republicans largely criticized Padilla. 'Padilla didn't want answers; he wanted attention,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. 'Padilla embarrassed himself and his constituents with this immature, theater-kid stunt.' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., called Padilla's actions 'wildly inappropriate,' saying they 'rise to the level of a censure.' But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called the episode 'very disturbing,' saying 'it looks like he is being manhandled and physically removed and it's hard to imagine a justification for that.' Read more → If you like the immigration showdown in Los Angeles, you're going to love the sweeping domestic policy bill pending before Congress. Though the measure would slash spending for many arms of the federal government, it would pour more than $150 billion into border security, interior immigration enforcement and deportations. That includes $75 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement alone. Drilling down, $8 billion is earmarked to hire 10,000 more ICE agents and support staff, and nearly $900 million more is tucked into the legislation to give bonuses to ICE recruits and agents who commit to remaining in their jobs for five years. The goal is about a 50% increase in the size of the agency. Trump allies expect that the money for ICE, which is conducting workplace raids like the ones at issue in Los Angeles, will enable the administration to ramp up its efforts to apprehend immigrants who are in the country illegally and try to follow through on the president's promise to deport people by the millions. 'If you want to do it at this scale — the scale required — you're going to have to have more people,' said Rachel Bovard, vice president for policy programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, a nonprofit closely aligned with Trump's agenda. That's happening against the backdrop of the mess in L.A., where Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines in nesting-doll fashion to protect federal agents and property. The Guard is there to protect ICE from protesters — some of whom have been violent — and the Marines are there to protect the Guard. California officials have objected to the workplace raids and the president's decision to activate the Guard without the consent of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is suing to stop Trump. White House officials have threatened to arrest Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass if they break any laws in pushing back on the raids and military presence. The battle among politicians turned physical Thursday when Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., approached Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a news conference she was hosting in Los Angeles. Padilla was forcibly removed from the room, pushed to the ground and handcuffed by federal agents after he tried to ask Noem a question. There seems to be no end to the escalation. And while there's no way to predict the future, there may soon be enough money to ensure that it looks a lot like present-day L.A. ➡️ Middle East update: Israel is considering taking military action against Iran — most likely without U.S. support — in the coming days, even as President Donald Trump is in advanced discussions with Tehran about a diplomatic deal to curtail its nuclear program. Read more → ✂️ On the chopping block: The Republican-led House voted to approve Trump's request to claw back $9.4 billion in previously approved federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Read more → 🎤 Welcome to Washington: House Republicans clashed with Democratic Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota during a tense immigration hearing on Capitol Hill. Read more → 🪧 Protest unrest: Some far-left groups have encouraged peaceful protests to turn violent, including in Los Angeles, experts told NBC News. Read more → 🛜 Protest unrest, cont.: Russia is amplifying conspiracy theories online about the Los Angeles protests against immigration raids. Read more → 🔵 Hogg out: Progressive activist David Hogg said he won't run for vice chair of the Democratic National Committee again after the committee called for a redo of the February election. Read more → ⚖️ SCOTUS watch: The Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against the FBI stemming from an incident where agents raided the wrong house in Atlanta. Read more → 📝 Signed, sealed, delivered: Trump signed resolutions barring California's mandate on electric vehicle sales and diesel engine rules. Read more → 🎉 You're invited after all: Trump said on social media that 'of course' Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is invited to the annual White House picnic just one day after the senator said he was barred from attending. Read more → Follow live politics updates → That's all From the Politics Desk for now. Today's newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Dylan Ebs. If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at politicsnewsletter@ And if you're a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here. This article was originally published on
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Alleged LA riot leader's father slams him for handing out supplies to anti-ICE protesters
The dad of a young union worker and socialist activist arrested by the FBI for handing out face shields to dozens of LA rioters said his son isn't a criminal — but slammed him for supplying the anti-ICE riots, and leading the feds to bust down the door of their family home. Francisco Orellana's reaction to seeing his son Alejandro 'Alex' Orellana driving a truck loaded with supplies for protesters was: 'What the f–k are you doing?' The elder Orellana, a US citizen who moved to the US in the 1970s, told The Post the feds handcuffed the whole family in pursuit of his son on Thursday morning, smashing in the front door of their Los Angeles house and breaking a window on his truck. 10 Alejandro 'Alex' Orellana was arrested after passing out face shields to LA rioters. USAttyEssayli/X 10 The FBI raided Orellana's LA house where he lives with his parents and sibling. Courtesy of Francisco Orellana The younger Orellana was busted on charges of conspiracy to commit civil disorders, US Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli said. Images taken at the riot show dozens of protesters running up to a truck Alex was allegedly driving to grab 'Bionic Shield' transparent masks, which are normally used at jobsites to protect workers' faces from flying debris or chemical splashes. Francisco Orellana, a construction technician, told The Post he didn't know how his son got involved in the protests, and said he may have been in the truck because someone asked him for a favor. 'My son is a good boy … he's not a criminal. He doesn't have a bad record, he's clear,' he said. 'I saw the picture [of Alejandro in the truck], which my sister-in-law sent to my wife. I said, 'what the f–k are you doing? Why are you doing that?'' 10 Boxes of face shields being passed out the back of a truck in LA. FOX11 10 Orellana's father Francisco told The Post his son is a 'good boy' and doesn't have a criminal record — but still questioned why he would allegedly help rioters. FOX11 He said his son told him, 'Papa, I don't think this is illegal,' but the concerned dad had his doubts. 'I said, 'it ends up being a big problem when you're giving stuff to people [who do violence]. They burned police cars, they broke windows, this is not right.' I said, 'It's illegal to [help] people fighting with the police, people fighting with immigration.' Alex Orellana, a US Marine veteran, is a UPS worker and a shop steward for the Teamster's union who has been active for years with fighting for social justice causes — including with Centro CSO, which famously trained Cesar Chavez, according to social media posts. One video shows him giving a May Day speech last year in black combat boots and camouflage pants. 10 Orellana's Marine uniform seen on a pile of clothes after the FBI raided his house. Courtesy of Francisco Orellana 10 A damaged door frame in the house after the FBI raid. Courtesy of Francisco Orellana On June 6, he wrote gleefully for the socialist news site Fight Back! about protesters chasing down federal agents in Los Angeles and forcing them to leave the neighborhood of Boyle Heights. The elder Orellana said he disagrees with the protesters' tactics, even though some cheered his son's alleged actions in helping them. 'Some people are thinking, 'he's helping people. He's doing a good job.' I don't think that. I tell a lot of people, 'don't go to the protests,'' he said. 10 FBI agents took the entire family's electronic devices in the raid, Francisco Orellana told The Post. Courtesy of Francisco Orellana 10 Damage inside Orellana's house seen after the raid. Courtesy of Francisco Orellana He detailed the federal agents' raid on the family home, where Francisco lives with his wife and two adult sons, including Alex. 'They broke down my door, broke the window of my truck, they broke my wall. … I woke up, and I heared boom boom boom on the door. I said, 'wait, wait, wait! Let me put on my clothes, let me put on my shoes …The FBI, they arrested me, they arrested my wife, my other son,' he said. 'They go through my house. Who's going to pay for my house? Who's going to fix these things?' Francisco said the FBI took the phones and laptops for everyone in the home and held them in custody for an hour. 10 A protester waving a Mexican-US flag in front of police officers in downtown LA on June 9, 2025. Photo by RONALDO SCHEMIDT/AFP via Getty Images 10 Police officers in riot gear blocking an on ramp to the 101 freeway in LA on June 11, 2025. Photo byAs for his take on immigration, Francisco said law-abiding people coming into the country to work is a good thing, but condemned the many he sees as taking advantage of the system. 'It's too many people not working. Who's paying for them? You and me, and everybody working. We're paying to keep those people here,' he said, sharing a story about one of his neighbors. 'She has seven kids. They said the government pays rent, gives them money for food, everything. I told her one day, 'I am the government. They're taking that money from my check. You eat because we're working. We don't work, you don't eat,' he said. He also spared no praise for the lefty policies of Golden State politicians, whom he blames for the current state of affairs. 'California is no good. Democratic people left the state really, really bad.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit.
It's been almost eight years since an FBI SWAT team arrived at Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt's home, detonated a flash grenade inside, ripped the door off, and stormed into the couple's bedroom with guns drawn. Agents handcuffed Cliatt at gunpoint, and Martin, who had tried to barricade herself inside of her closet, says she fell on a rack amid the mayhem. But law enforcement would not find who they were looking for there, because that suspect, Joseph Riley, lived in a nearby house on a different street. The issue is still a relevant one for Martin and Cliatt, along with Martin's son, Gabe—who was 7 years old at the time of the raid—as the group has fought for years, unsuccessfully, for the right to sue the government over the break-in. The Supreme Court on Thursday resurrected that lawsuit, unanimously ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had settled on a faulty analysis when it barred Martin and Cliatt from suing in April 2024. But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be." The issue before the Court did not pertain to immunity for any individual law enforcement agent, whom the 11th Circuit shielded from liability in its decision last year. The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the lawsuit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment. There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims—a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso—essentially an exception to the exception—that permits claims to get around that carve-out when the misconduct in question is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids. The 11th Circuit accordingly observed that the proviso would allow Martin and Cliatt's intentional tort claims to survive the exception. The court killed those claims anyway. It cited the Supremacy Clause, which the judges said protected the government from liability if its employees' actions had "some nexus with furthering federal policy and [could] reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Not so, said the Supreme Court. Somewhat surprisingly, that put it in agreement with the government—which, prior to oral arguments, conceded the 11th Circuit's conclusion there was incorrect, and that it did not care to defend it. "We find the government's concession commendable and correct," writes Gorsuch. "The FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit's Supremacy Clause defense." Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing—distinctive under the law from intentional torts—writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said. But the 11th Circuit took its discretionary analysis a step further, ruling that, for acts of wrongdoing that have intentionality, the law enforcement proviso trumps the discretionary exception outright. The justices rejected that. "The law enforcement proviso…overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection," the Court said, "not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions." So where does that leave Martin and Cliatt? "On remand, the 11th Circuit will need to decide whether raiding the wrong house is a 'discretionary function,'" says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented the pair. Jaicomo was hoping the Court would address that very confusion. The plaintiffs "call on us to determine whether and under what circumstances the discretionary-function exception bars suits for wrong-house raids and similar misconduct," writes Gorsuch. "Unless we take up that further question, they worry, the Eleventh Circuit on remand may take too broad a view of the exception and dismiss their claims again. After all, the plaintiffs observe, in the past that court has suggested that the discretionary-function exception bars any claim 'unless a source of federal law "specifically prescribes" a course of conduct' and thus deprives an official of all discretion." The Supreme Court, however, ultimately opted for a narrow approach, though the justices acknowledged "that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said there are no such circumstances when considering the fact pattern presented in Martin and Cliatt's suit. "Like driving, executing a warrant always involves some measure of discretion," she wrote. "Yet it is hard to see how Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect." That would seem like the right conclusion, particularly when considering the genesis of that law enforcement proviso, which Congress enacted to give recourse to victims who suffered at the hands of near-identical misconduct. Those lawmakers clearly did not think the discretionary exception would doom their claims. That the law was meant to protect people like Martin, Cliatt, and Martin's son is why a bipartisan group of lawmakers—including Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Nikema Williams (D–Ga.), and Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.)—had urged the Court to take up their case. Sotomayor's description of Guerra's negligence is also salient and was the subject of one of the more interesting exchanges when the Supreme Court heard the case. Arguing for the Justice Department, Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, said it was too much for Martin and Cliatt to expect "that the officer should have checked the house number on the mailbox." "Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door," Gorsuch responded. Liu countered that such a decision "is filled with policy tradeoffs." "Really?" Gorsuch replied. The post The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit. appeared first on
