State v. Humphries
Decision Date | 15 August 2019 |
Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-37752,A-1-CA-37752 |
Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PHILLIP HUMPHRIES, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Kimberly M. Chavez Cook, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
{1} Defendant has appealed following his convictions for trafficking (possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute), careless driving, driving while license suspended, driving without vehicle registration, and driving without insurance. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the convictions. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
{2} The pertinent background information has previously been set out at length. We will avoid unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus on the content of the memorandum in opposition.
{3} First, Defendant renews his argument that the district court erred in denying his untimely motion to suppress. [MIO 3, 9-15] In his memorandum in opposition Defendant clarifies his underlying argument, explaining that the officer's stated basis for the traffic stop changed over time: initially, the officer contended that Defendant had been driving eastbound in a westbound lane of traffic; but later, the officer indicated that he had merely observed Defendant "turn eastbound from a side road onto westbound Central," [MIO 12] and "across the westbound lanes . . . at somewhat of an angle" [MIO 4] prior to entering a parking lot. [MIO 13] Although we appreciate the clarification, it does not enhance the persuasive value of the motion. Regardless of the nuances, the fact remains that the officer observed Defendant driving eastbound in a westbound lane, [MIO 4-5, 12-13] such that the officer had a reasonable basis to believe that Defendant had committed a traffic violation by "driving the wrong direction" in that lane, as the officer had previously explained. [MIO 12] See NMSA 1978, § 66-7-308(A) (1978) (). We note that the officer's observations would also support a reasonable suspicion that Defendant had executed an improper turn, and/or was driving carelessly. See NMSA 1978, § 66-8-114(B) (1978) ( ); NMSA 1978, § 66-7-322 (1978) ( ); cf. State v. Salas, 2014-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 2, 14-15, 321 P.3d 965 ( ). Insofar as any or all of these considerations would supply a valid basis for the stop, the untimely motion to suppress was without merit. See State v. Farish, 2018-NMCA-003, ¶¶ 7, 16, 410 P.3d 239 ( ). We therefore reject Defendant's first assertion of error. Cf. State v. Richardson, 1992-NMCA-112, ¶ 5, 114 N.M. 725, 845 P.2d 819 (, )abrogated on other grounds by Allen v. LeMaster, 2012-NMSC-001, 267 P.3d 806.
{4} Next, Defendant renews his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for trafficking, specifically and exclusively arguing that the State failed to establish possession and intent to distribute. [MIO 15-18] However, as described at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition. [CN 4-5] theevidence of Defendant's control over the vehicle, the presence of his personal effects in close proximity to the methamphetamine located therein, and his incriminating statements to the officer all supplied compelling evidence of Defendant's possession and intent to distribute....
To continue reading
Request your trial