State v. Contreras
| Decision Date | 30 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 33,489,33,489 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.Please seeRule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper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.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
{1}Defendant, Jose Contreras appeals from his convictions for aggravated driving under the influence (DWI), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(D)(3)(2010), careless driving, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-114(B)(1978), and possession of a controlled substance, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23(D)(2011).Defendant argues that: (1)the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions, (2) the jury was not properly instructed on the essential elements for the aggravated DWI charge, (3) his convictions for aggravated DWI and careless driving violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, and (4)he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
{2} On February 26, 2011, Dona Ana County Sheriff's Deputies Martha Aguilera and Adrian Chavez were dispatched to an automobile accident.Upon arriving at the scene of the accident, Deputy Aguilera observed Defendant outside of the vehicle.Defendant told Deputy Aguilera that he had been driving the vehicle and that he was drunk.During an investigatory detention, Defendant consented to a patdown for weapons and Defendant informed Deputy Aguilera that he had cocaine in his right front coin pocket.With Defendant's permission, Deputy Aguilera retrieved a folded dollar bill from Defendant's pocket.Inside the dollar bill was a small, clear plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance later identified as cocaine.
{3} Deputy Chavez arrived at the scene of the accident after Deputy Aguilera.He interviewed Defendant about the accident.Defendant stated that he was driving to hismother's house when he lost control of the vehicle.Deputy Chavez asked Defendant if anything—another vehicle, a person, or an animal—was on the road causing him to crash.Defendant denied that anyone or anything else was involved in the accident.
{4} A jury convicted Defendant of aggravated DWI, careless driving, and possession of a controlled substance.This appeal followed.
{5}Defendant claims that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions."In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict."State v. Holt, 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 20, 368 P.3d 409(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)."In that light, the [appellate c]ourt[s] determine[] whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."Id.(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
{6} In this case, the jury was instructed that in order to convict Defendant of aggravated DWI for refusing to submit to a chemical test, the State had to show that on February 26, 2011, "[D]efendant operated a motor vehicle[, D]efendant was underthe influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs to such a degree [D]efendant was incapable of safely drivingefendant refused to submit to chemical testing[.]"Deputy Aguilera testified that when she arrived on the scene of the accident, Defendant told her that he was drunk and that he had been driving the vehicle when it crashed.Deputy Aguilera observed that Defendant had watery eyes and slurred speech.According to Deputy Aguilera, Defendant was incapable of performing field sobriety tests because "he could barely stand on his own two feet."Defendant twice refused to take a breath test, saying "I'm too drunk, I had 20."This evidence is sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.
{7} In order to convict Defendant of careless driving, the State had to show that on February 26, 2011, "[D]efendant operated the motor vehicle in a careless, inattentive[,] or imprudent manner without due regard for the width, grade curves, corner, traffic, weather, road conditions and all other attendant circumstances."According to Deputy Chavez's testimony, Defendant admitted that he was driving the night of the accident.When he was asked for an explanation of how he lost control of the vehicle, Defendant responded by saying "he was drunk."When asked, Defendant denied there being anything else on the road that night that contributed to the accident.The State also produced photographs of the vehicle after the accident, which showedthat Defendant's vehicle initially struck a pole, ripping the front tire away from the vehicle and continued into a fence.We conclude that this evidence is sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for careless driving.
{8}Defendant challenges his conviction for possesion of a controlled substance pursuant to State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982.Defendant claims that he should not have been convicted because the cocaine did not belong to him; however, Defendant acknowledges that this assertion was not stated on the record.
{9} With regard to possession of cocaine, the jury was instructed that in order to find Defendant guilty of possession of cocaine, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on February 26, 2011, Defendant"had cocaine in his possession;" and "knew it was cocaine or believed it to be cocaine."The jury was also given the following definition of "possession":
{10} Deputy Aguilera testified that Defendant told her he had cocaine concealed in a dollar bill in his right front coin pocket and gave her permission to remove it.The substance discovered in the dollar bill was a white powdery substance, that was later tested and identified as cocaine.Based on these facts, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine.
{11} To the extent that Defendant relies on his own testimony to support a different result, "[t]he question is not whether substantial evidence would have supported an opposite result but whether such evidence supports the result reached."State v. James, 1989-NMCA-089, ¶ 11, 109 N.M. 278, 784 P.2d 1021.
{12}Defendant argues that he did not receive a fair trial because the jury was not provided a proper jury instruction for DWI.Defendant acknowledges that he did not object to the DWI instruction as it was given and asks us to review the DWI instruction for fundamental error.SeeState v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 11, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176().Fundamental error exists "if there has been a miscarriage ofjustice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done."State v. Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 22, 143 N.M. 792,182 P.3d 775(internal quotation marks and citation omitted);seeState v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 17, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633().
{13} Under fundamental error review, a conviction cannot be upheld if an error implicates "a fundamental unfairness within the system that would undermine judicial integrity if left unchecked."Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 18(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).Thus, we must determine whether the departure from the language of the uniform jury instruction caused such a "fundamental unfairness" in Defendant's trial.Seeid.When we analyze jury instructions for fundamental error, "we seek to determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction."State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12, 131 N.M. 258, 34 P.3d 1134(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).In order for such an instruction to mislead, it must "omit essential elements or be so confusing . . . that a court cannot be certain that the jury found the essential elements."Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 24(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
{14} The uniform jury instruction that states the essential elements of the crime of aggravated DWI while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and refusing to submit to chemical testing as defined by Section 66-8-102(D) provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial