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, Alex Duran, who was convicted for trafficking a controlled substance, specifically methamphetamine, by distribution. The conviction was based on evidence including a law enforcement officer's testimony about purchasing methamphetamine from the Defendant and a stipulation regarding the substance's nature and quantity.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence, including the testimony of Otero County Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Mirabal and the stipulation between the State and Defendant that the substance was .09 grams of methamphetamine, was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.
• Appellant (Alex Duran): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, particularly criticizing the lack of corroborating evidence to support Deputy Mirabal’s testimony.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking a controlled substance (methamphetamine) by distribution.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and partially suspended sentence, which reflected the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael E. Vigil with concurrence from Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Emil J. Kiehne, found the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction. The Court highlighted the testimony of Deputy Matt Mirabal, who testified about arranging and conducting a purchase of methamphetamine from the Defendant, and the stipulation regarding the substance's nature and quantity as compelling evidence. The Court dismissed the Defendant's argument for insufficient evidence due to the lack of corroborating evidence for Deputy Mirabal’s testimony, emphasizing the principle that the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient for a conviction and that the credibility of witnesses is a matter for the fact-finder, not for reevaluation by the appellate court (paras 2-4).