August 15, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Phillip Humphries, No. A-1-CA-37752

Corrections to this opinion not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation
Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37752
5 PHILLIP HUMPHRIES,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Benjamin Chavez, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	Kimberly M. Chavez Cook, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 	Santa Fe, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VARGAS, Judge.
18 	{l} 	Defendant has appealed following his convictions for trafficking (possession
19 	of a controlled substance with intent to distribute), careless driving, driving while
20 	license 	suspended, 	driving 	without 	vehicle 	registration, 	and 	driving 	without
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 8/15/2019 9:17 AM

1 insurance. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which
2 we proposed to uphold the convictions. Defendant has filed a memorandum in
3 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
4 	{2} 	The pertinent background information has previously been set out at length.
5 We will avoid unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus on the content of the
6 memorandum in opposition.
7 {3} 	First, Defendant renews his argument that the district court erred in denying his
8 untimely motion to suppress. [MIO 3, 9-15] In his memorandum in opposition
9 Defendant clarifies his underlying argument, explaining that the officer's stated basis
10 	for the traffic stop changed over time: initially, the officer contended that Defendant
11 	had been driving eastbound in a westbound lane of traffic; but later, the officer
12 	indicated that he had merely observed Defendant "tum eastbound from a side road
13 	onto westbound Central," [MIO 12] and "across the westbound lanes ... at somewhat
14 	of an angle" [MIO 4] prior to entering a parking lot. [MIO 	13] Although we
15 	appreciate the clarification, it does not enhance the persuasive value of the motion.
16 Regardless of the nuances, the fact remains that the officer observed Defendant
17 driving eastbound in a westbound lane, [MIO 4-5, 12-13] such that the officer had a
18 reasonable basis to believe that Defendant had committed a traffic violation by
19 "driving the wrong direction" in that lane, as the officer had previously explained.
2

1 [MIO 12] See NMSA 1978, § 66-7-308(A) (1978) ("Upon all roadways of sufficient
2 width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, and where
3 practicable, entirely to the right of the center thereof[.]"). We note that the officer's
4 observations would also support a reasonable suspicion that Defendant had executed
5 an improper tum, and/or was driving carelessly. See NMSA 1978, § 66-8-114(B)
6 (1978) (defining careless driving to include the operation of a vehicle in an imprudent
7 manner, without due regard for comers and all other attendant circumstances); NMSA
8 1978, § 66-7-322 (1978) (describing the required position and method oftuming at
9 intersections); cf State v. Salas, 2014-NMCA.:.043, 11 	2, 14-15, 321 P.3d 965
10 (holding that an officer's observation of the defendant's "erratic driving," including
11 	his sudden left tum into a driveway from the far right lane, thereby crossing over
12 multiple lanes of traffic, gave rise to "legitimate and reasonable suspicion that lane
13 	and illegal tum-related traffic offenses _occurred" such that the traffic stop was
14 justified). Insofar as any or all of these considera,tions would supply a valid basis for
15 	the stop, 	the untimely motion to suppress was without merit. See State v. Farish,
16 2018-NMCA-003, 11 7, 16, 410 P.3d 239 (observing that an officer may stop a
17 vehicle if he or she is aware of specific facts, together with rational inferences from
18 those facts, that when judged objectively would lead a reasonable person to believe
19 that the motorist violated a traffic law; and explaining that as a reviewing court, we
3

1 consider the facts in the record to determine whether they could support reasonable
2 suspicion of a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code on any grounds). We therefore
3 reject Defendant's first assertion of error. Cf State v. Richardson, 1992-NMCA-l 12,
4 15, 114 N.M. 725,845 P.2d 819 (rejecting an assertion of reversible error premised
5 on a meritless suppression argument), abrogated on other grounds by Allen v.
6 LeMaster, 2012-NMSC-001, 267 P.3d 806.
7 {4} 	Next, Defendant renews his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to
8 support his conviction for trafficking, specifically and exclusively arguing that the
9 State failed to establish possession and intent to distribute. [MIO 15-18] However,
10 as described at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition. [CN 4-
11 	5] the evidence of Defendant's control over the vehicle, the presence of his personal
12 effects 	in 	close 	proximity to 	the 	methamphetamine 	located 	therein, 	and 	his
13 	incriminating 	statements 	to 	the 	officer. all 	supplied 	compelling 	evidence 	of
14 Defendant's possession and intent to distribute. We therefore reject Defendant's
15 	second assertion of error.
16 	{5} 	Third, Defendant renews his challenge to the admission of evidence identifying
17 the substance seized from his vehicle as methamphetamine. [MIO 18-19] However,
18 	as we previously observed, [CN 6- 7] the district court acted well within its discretion.
19 	See State v. Arias, 2018-NMCA-057, 11 25-26, 427 P.3d 129 (cataloging cases
4

1 allowing lay identification of controlled substances and noting the general rule of
2 admissibility); State v.Peters, 1997-NMCA-084,, 26, 123 N.M. 667, 944 P.2d 896
3 (explaining that the state is not required to establish chain of custody in sufficient
4 detail to exclude all possibility of tampering, and holding that in this context,
5 questions affect the weight of the evidence, rather than admissibility).
6 {6} 	Fourth and finally, Defendant renews his jurisdictional challenge. [MIO 19-20]
7 For the reasons previously stated, [CN 7] we conclude that the argument is without
8 merit. SeeStatev. Adamo, 2018-NMCA-013,, 55,409 P.3d 1002 (rejecting asimilar
9 argument).
10 	{7} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary
11 	disposition and above, we affirm.
12 	{8} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15 	WE CONCUR:
16 +------Q,,,d-....................;o,g,_.L..-""-""'"'-===--''-="~
17
5