AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant, Daniel Romero, who was convicted for trafficking by distribution of cocaine on two separate occasions, December 12 and December 19, 2013. An undercover officer arranged a controlled purchase of cocaine from the Defendant via cell phone and text messages. The officer testified that he met with the Defendant near his home, where the Defendant provided him cocaine in exchange for U.S. currency on both occasions. The substance was confirmed to be cocaine by a lab analyst.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence presented, including the testimony of an undercover officer and a lab analyst, was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for trafficking by distribution of cocaine.
• Defendant-Appellant (Daniel Romero): Contended that the district court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, arguing the State's case rested merely on the officer’s allegations and the cocaine, without information on the confidential source, absence of audio-visual evidence of the encounter, and no recovery of cash given in exchange for the cocaine.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for trafficking by distribution of cocaine.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to include a speedy trial issue should be granted.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring:
  The Court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, citing the undercover officer's testimony about purchasing cocaine from the Defendant on two occasions and the lab analyst's confirmation of the substance as cocaine. The Court referenced State v. Rael to support its conclusion that such testimony provides sufficient support for a conviction for trafficking.
  Regarding the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court emphasized that its role on appeal is to determine if the fact-finder's decision is supported by substantial evidence, not to reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony.
  The Court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to include a speedy trial issue, applying the Barker v. Wingo framework and concluding that the Defendant failed to demonstrate a violation of his speedy trial rights. The Court noted that the length of delay did not weigh heavily in the Defendant's favor and that the Defendant did not make a particularized showing of actual prejudice.