A-1-CA-37610 | Omnilex

Full text

Corrections to this opinion not affect in g the outcome, at the Co urt ' s d iscretion, can occur up to the time of pub li cation with 	M
Compilation Comm ission. The Court wi ll ensure that the electronic version of thi s op inion is updated accordi ngly in Od yssey.
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-37610
5 GILBERT MACIAS,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 	APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY
8 Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge
9 Hector H. Baldera s, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 	Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 	Santa Fe, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 	VARGAS, Judge.
18 	{ 1} 	Defendant appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of trafficking (by
19 distribution), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3 l -20(A)(2) (2006). In this Court's
20 notice of proposed disposition, we proposed summary affirmance. Defendant filed a
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 9/10/2019 11:45 AM

1 memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining
2 unpersuaded, we affirm.
3 {2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that there was
4 insufficient evidence to support his conviction. [MIO 3] Defendant has not asserted
5 any facts , law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed
6 disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ,r 24, 124
7 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar
8 cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point
9 out errors in fact or law." ); State v. Mondragon , 1988-NMCA-027, ,r 10, 107 N.M.
10 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice
11 must come forward and specifically point out errors oflaw and fact, and the repetition
12 of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by st atute on other
13 grounds as stated in State v. Harris , 2013-NMCA-031 , ,r 3, 297 P.3d 374.
14 {3} Defendant's assertions rely on the State' s lack of particular pieces of evidence.
15 In his memorandum in opposition, as in his docketing statement, Defendant argues
16 that the State did not present video surveillance evidence that showed the
17 methamphetamine was exchanged for money. [MIO 1, 5; DS 2] We addressed this
18 argument in our calendar notice. [CN 5] Again, it was for the jury to resolve any
19 conflicts and determine weight and credibility in the testimony; we do not reweigh
2

I 	the evidence, and we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder, as
2 long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. See State v. Griffin, 1993-
3 NMSC-071 , ,r 17 , 116 N.M. 689, 866 P.2d 1156; State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099,
4 ,r 13 , 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482.
5 {4} 	This reasoning also applies to Defendant's additional argument that there was
6 no recovery of the cash that the undercover officer gave Defendant. [MIO 1, 5] While
7 that theoretical evidence might have further supported the State's case, Defendant has
8 not shown that the absence of any such evidence was reversible error. As we
9 discussed in our calendar notice [CN 3] , the officer testified that he gave Defendant
10 	five hundred dollars in exchange for the methamphetamine, providing direct evidence
11 	ofthetrafficking.SeeStatev. Castleman, 1993-NMCA-019, ,r,r2, 19 , 116N.M.467,
12 	863 P.2d 1088 (observing that the testimony of an undercover officer describing his
13 	purchase of a controlled substance from the defendant was sufficient to support a
14 conviction for trafficking).
15 	{5} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
16 	herein, we affirm Defendant's convictions.
17 	{6}
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

1 WECONCUR:
~
, 	hief Judge
4~~5 MEGAN P. D~dge
4

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

1]
12
13
14
15
16

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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, th. 10/2019 11:45 AM
Plaintiff-Appellee, ~£e4
Mark Reyn
V. NO. A-1-CA-37610
GILBERT MACIAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY

Doug is R. Driggers, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
43 Defendant appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of trafficking (by

dist ution), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3 1-20(A)(2) (2006). In this Court’s

notice of proposed disposition, we proposed summary affirmance. Defendant filed a

I the evidence, and we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder, as
2 long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. See State v. Griffin, 1993-
3 NMSC-071 , ,r 17 , 116 N.M. 689, 866 P.2d 1156; State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099,
4 ,r 13 , 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482.
5 {4} This reasoning also applies to Defendant's additional argument that there was
6 no recovery of the cash that the undercover officer gave Defendant. [MIO 1, 5] While
7 that theoretical evidence might have further supported the State's case, Defendant has
8 not shown that the absence of any such evidence was reversible error. As we
9 discussed in our calendar notice [CN 3] , the officer testified that he gave Defendant
10 five hundred dollars in exchange for the methamphetamine, providing direct evidence
11 ofthetrafficking.SeeStatev. Castleman, 1993-NMCA-019, ,r,r2, 19 , 116N.M.467,
12 863 P.2d 1088 (observing that the testimony of an undercover officer describing his
13 purchase of a controlled substance from the defendant was sufficient to support a
14 conviction for trafficking).
15 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
16 herein, we affirm Defendant's convictions.
17 {6}
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

1
WE CONCUR:
2
ano
3 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge
4 5
Megan Poufs
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge
4

September 10, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Gilbert Macias, No. A-1-CA-37610

Full text

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude