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

• On August 15, 2013, Nicole Ramirez, under the direction of Defendant Paul Salazar, attempted to deliver methamphetamine and synthetic cannabinoids (PB-22 and 5F-PB22) hidden within hygiene products to David Patrick, an inmate at the Curry County Detention Center. The substances were concealed in deodorant sticks. The State alleged that Salazar conspired to traffic methamphetamine and distribute synthetic cannabinoids through this act (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Stephen K. Quinn, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, April 13, 2018, No. S-1-SC-36939.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the delay in trial violated his right to a speedy trial, the State failed to prove the substances were synthetic cannabinoids as defined under New Mexico law, and the State did not present sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions due to not calling Ms. Ramirez to testify at trial. Additionally, raised unpreserved issues regarding the charges, sentencing, prosecutor's comments, and admission of testimony from Probation Officer Edie Barela (paras 3-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the delay did not violate the Defendant's speedy trial rights, the substances found were indeed synthetic cannabinoids as per the law, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. Addressed the Defendant's additional claims as either unfounded or not constituting reversible error.

Legal Issues

• Whether the delay in bringing the Defendant to trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
• Whether the State failed to prove that the substances contained in the deodorant container were synthetic cannabinoids as defined under New Mexico law.
• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the unpreserved issues raised by the Defendant constitute fundamental or plain error (paras 3-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions for one count of trafficking methamphetamine, one count of distribution of synthetic cannabinoids, and one count of conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine or to distribute synthetic cannabinoids (para 1).

Reasons

• MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge (JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge Pro Tempore concurring): The court found that the nineteen-month and ten-day delay to trial did not violate the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, considering the reasons for delay and the Defendant's actions during the pre-trial period. The court also held that the State had established that the substances found were synthetic cannabinoids as defined under New Mexico law, despite not being specifically enumerated in the statute. Furthermore, the court determined that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, even without Ms. Ramirez's testimony, based on the circumstantial evidence and phone call transcripts. The court addressed the Defendant's additional claims regarding charges, sentencing, prosecutorial comments, and admission of testimony, finding no basis for reversal or fundamental error (paras 5-67).