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 March 1, 2013, probation officers and New Mexico State Police officers went to the defendant's residence to arrest him for a probation violation. During the visit, officers found $800 in cash on the defendant and deemed it suspicious due to his reported unemployment. A search of the defendant's home yielded nineteen strips of Suboxone, rolling papers, small plastic baggies, a box of latex gloves, six cell phones, approximately $500 in cash, two touch pads, an iPod, police scanners, and an EBT card not belonging to the defendant. Text messages suggesting attempts to obtain and/or provide Suboxone were found on the seized phones. The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the text messages retrieved from his cell phone were obtained during a warrantless search and thus should be suppressed. Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, improper admission of propensity evidence, questioned the qualification of a witness as an expert and the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction, raised double jeopardy concerns, and argued for the recusal of the district court judge due to alleged bias (paras 6, 8, 13, 18, 22, 28, 36, 43).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the defendant failed to provide a factual or legal basis for the suppression of the text messages, defended the effectiveness of counsel, supported the admissibility of the evidence and expert witness testimony, and argued against the defendant's claims of double jeopardy and the need for judge recusal (paras 12, 16, 20, 26, 30, 34, 38, 44).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress text messages retrieved from his cell phones.
• Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the text messages retrieved from the defendant's cell phone were admitted as improper character evidence.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.
• Whether the defendant's convictions violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court judge should have recused himself due to alleged personal bias against the defendant (paras 8, 13, 18, 22, 28, 36, 43).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia (para 48).

Reasons

• ZAMORA, Judge (WECHSLER and KENNEDY, Judges concurring): The court found that the defendant did not articulate a factual or legal basis to support the suppression of text messages and that the timing of the motion left no time for an evidentiary hearing. The court also concluded that the defendant failed to make a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. Regarding the admissibility of evidence, the court determined that the text messages were relevant to the charges and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and it did not find any error in qualifying Lieutenant Martinez as an expert witness. The court concluded that the defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles and found no basis for the recusal of the district court judge due to alleged bias (paras 12, 16, 20, 26, 30, 34, 38, 44).