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 Defendant was convicted of trafficking and drug possession following a jury trial. The evidence included four baggies of methamphetamine totaling 5.9 grams found at the Defendant's residence, alongside different sized baggies, a scale, and a list of names with dollar amounts. The Defendant contended that the items were for personal use and unrelated activities, but the jury rejected this explanation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the trafficking conviction, specifically challenging the evidence of intent to distribute methamphetamine. Additionally, contended that her right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the trafficking conviction and that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. The State also argued that the Defendant's speedy trial challenge was not adequately preserved for appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking.
• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for trafficking and drug possession.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Gerald E. Baca presiding and Judges Megan P. Duffy and Zachary A. Ives concurring, held the following:
  Sufficiency of the Evidence
  The court found that the amount of methamphetamine, along with the presence of packaging materials, a scale, and a list of names at the Defendant's residence, provided sufficient evidence for the jury to infer intent to distribute (paras 4-8). The court emphasized that intent to distribute could be inferred from the quantity of the drug and the circumstances surrounding its possession.
  Speedy Trial
  The court addressed the Defendant's speedy trial claim by applying the Barker v. Wingo framework, considering the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the Defendant's assertion of her right, and the prejudice to the Defendant (paras 9-35). The court concluded that, although the delay was presumptively prejudicial given its length, the reasons for the delay weighed slightly against the State, and the Defendant had frequently and forcefully asserted her right to a speedy trial, she failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay. Consequently, the court held that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated.
  In summary, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions based on the sufficiency of the evidence and the determination that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, despite the lengthy delay before trial.