July 27, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Brandon Patino-Chavez, No. A-1-CA-38606

Corrections to this opinion/decision 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/decision 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-38606
5 BRANDON PATINO-CHAVEZ,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Alisa A. Hart, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, 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 has appealed his convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia
19 and unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon. We issued a notice of proposed summary
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/27/2020 9:03 AM

2
1 disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant has filed a memorandum in
2 opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
3 {2} The relevant background information and principles of law have previously
4 been set forth. We will avoid undue reiteration here, and focus instead on the content
5 of the memorandum in opposition.
6 {3} With respect to his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, Defendant
7 continues to argue that the State presented insufficient evidence of specific intent.
8 [MIO 2-6] However, the officer’s testimony that the glass and metal pipes found on
9 Defendant’s person are commonly used to smoke marijuana, methamphetamine,
10 and/or other illicit drugs [DS 4; MIO 4] is sufficient to support a rational inference
11 of specific intent consistent with that use. See generally State v. Ochoa, 2004-NMSC-
12 023, ¶ 13, 135 N.M. 781, 93 P.3d 1286 (“An officer’s experience and training,
13 considered within the context of the incident, may permit the officer to identify drug
14 paraphernalia[.]”); State v. Barragan, 2001-NMCA-086, ¶ 29, 131 N.M. 281, 34 P.3d
15 1157 (“An inference is permissible if the evidence necessary to invoke the inference
16 (the evidence as a whole, including the basic fact or facts) is sufficient for a rational
17 juror to find the inferred fact beyond a reasonable doubt.” (internal quotation marks
18 and citation omitted); Dull v. Tellez, 1971-NMCA-133, ¶ 13, 83 N.M. 126, 489 P.2d
19 406 (explaining that a reasonable inference is a rational and logical deduction from

3
1 facts established by the evidence, when such facts are viewed in the light of common
2 knowledge or common experience). “The jury is entitled to rely upon rational
3 inferences deducible from the evidence.” State v. Bell, 1977-NMSC-013, ¶ 15, 90
4 N.M. 134, 560 P.2d 925 (citation omitted)). We therefore reject Defendant’s assertion
5 of error.
6 {4} With respect to his conviction for unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon,
7 Defendant continues to assert that the evidence was insufficient.[MIO 6-7] However,
8 the memorandum in opposition contains nothing new in the way of additional factual
9 development or legal argument. We therefore adhere to our initial assessment.
10 {5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
11 disposition and above, we affirm.
12 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 __________________________________
14 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
15 WE CONCUR:
16 ____________________________
17 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
18 _____________________________
19 MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge