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

• At approximately 10 p.m. on April 4, 2012, Officer Chris Luttrell observed a pickup truck parked next to a dumpster behind a shopping center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Defendant, Thomas Cunningham, and another man were inside the truck, with a third man standing outside interacting with them. Officer Luttrell, suspecting illicit activity, approached the vehicle, leading to the discovery of drugs and drug paraphernalia inside the truck and on the Defendant's person. The Defendant was subsequently charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and drug paraphernalia (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the investigatory detention, claiming there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop (para 6).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant, justifying the investigatory stop and subsequent search that led to the discovery of illicit drugs (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant, justifying the investigatory stop and search.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel warranting a new trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and declined the invitation to remand for a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 1, 28).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that:
  The officer's detention of the Defendant was based on reasonable suspicion, considering the totality of the circumstances including the time, location, and observed behaviors indicative of illegal activity (paras 7-22).
  The Defendant was not seized until the officer identified himself and ordered the Defendant to keep his hands visible, at which point there was reasonable suspicion to detain him (paras 13-14).
  The Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the prima facie requirement for a new trial or evidentiary hearing, as the record did not support the claim that counsel's performance was deficient or that such alleged deficiency prejudiced the defense (paras 23-27).