State v. West, NO. A-1-CA-37124

• Citation: NO. A-1-CA-37124
• Case Date: November 05, 2018

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
THOMAS CARL WEST, JR, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. A-1-CA-37124

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

November 5, 2018

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 OTERO COUNTY
James Waylon Counts, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Public Defender
J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

VIGIL, Judge.

Page 2

{1} Defendant Thomas Carl West, Jr., appeals his convictions for trafficking methamphetamine and conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and Defendant has responded with a timely memorandum in opposition. We have considered Defendant's arguments, but remain unpersuaded that our initial proposed disposition was incorrect. We therefore affirm.

{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of trafficking methamphetamine. [MIO 2-3] "The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction." State v. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We 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. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176. "We will not substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder, nor will we reweigh the evidence." State v. Trujillo, 2012-NMCA-092, ¶ 5, 287 P.3d 344.

{3} In order to convict Defendant of trafficking methamphetamine, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about September 15, 2015, (1)

Page 3

"[D]efendant transferred or caused the transfer of methamphetamine to another[,]" and (2) "[D]efendant knew it was methamphetamine . . . or believed it to be some drug or other substance the possession of which is regulated or prohibited by law[.]" [RP 42] See State v. Smith, 1986-NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 104 N.M. 729, 726 P.2d 883 ("Jury instructions become the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured."); see also UJI 14-3103 NMRA.

{4} Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he "transferred or caused the transfer of [the] methamphetamine to another." [MIO 2]...