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, Robert E. Johnson, was convicted for two counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana, all contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23(A) (2011). These convictions followed a conditional plea that reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained against him (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge, March 19, 2018: The trial court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, leading to his conviction on drug possession charges.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, which he believed was obtained in violation of his rights.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the trial court correctly denied the Defendant's motion to suppress and that the evidence was lawfully obtained and admissible. n[Not applicable or not found] for specific arguments and pieces of evidence presented by each party.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained against him.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, resulting in the upholding of his convictions for drug possession (para 3).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring:
  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Defendant's memorandum in opposition that there was an error of law or fact in the proposed disposition to affirm the trial court's decision. The appellate court relied on the presumption that the trial court's decision is correct and placed the burden on the appellant (Defendant) to clearly demonstrate error. The Defendant failed to meet this burden, leading to the affirmation of his convictions (paras 1-2).