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 on several counts of trafficking controlled substances among other charges. The appeal raised issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence and sought credit for time served in federal custody prior to the state-court trial and convictions.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge, July 18, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence supporting the convictions was insufficient and sought to amend the docketing statement to include a claim for credit for fifteen months of time served in federal custody. Contended that trial counsel was ineffective for not bringing necessary information to support this claim to the district court's attention.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions?
• Should the Defendant have been given credit for fifteen months of time served in federal custody prior to her state-court trial and convictions?
• Was the Defendant's trial counsel ineffective for not bringing the information necessary to support the claim for credit for time served to the attention of the district court?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions and the amount of presentence confinement credit awarded.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Henry M. Bohnhoff, Judge, concurring):
  The only issue initially raised by the Defendant was the sufficiency of the evidence, which the court proposed to affirm. The Defendant did not address this issue in her memorandum in opposition but instead raised a new issue regarding credit for time served in federal custody and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that both the request for credit and the assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel depended on facts not part of the record below. The district court had expressed interest in more information about the Defendant's time in federal custody and any agreements with law enforcement, but no specific information was provided. The court concluded that habeas corpus proceedings are generally preferable for pursuing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims due to the need for further development of facts. Therefore, the motion to amend the docketing statement was denied as the issue raised was not viable on the record before the court (paras 1-6).