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 for the distribution of marijuana after contraband was found taped to his underarms during the booking process at the Doña Ana County Detention Center. The Defendant argued that he was strip-searched, which led to the discovery of the contraband, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence found.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to set aside the judgment and conviction on the grounds of being denied effective assistance of counsel. The Defendant's counsel allegedly failed to file a motion to suppress evidence discovered during what the Defendant described as a strip search at the detention center (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's position, as inferred from the court's decision, appears to support the district court's findings and opposes the Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment and conviction, as well as the motion to amend the docketing statement (paras 1, 4-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment and conviction based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence found during the booking process.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement to add a new issue regarding the effectiveness of trial counsel on remand should be granted.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment and sentence.
• The Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement was denied (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J., with Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring:
  The Court granted the Defendant's motion for rehearing but ultimately affirmed the district court's decision after considering the Defendant's arguments in opposition. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings that the Defendant was not strip-searched but was observed changing clothes during the booking process, which led to the discovery of contraband (paras 2-3).
  The Court deferred to the district court on matters of credibility, particularly regarding the conflicting accounts of whether a strip search occurred. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's assessment that the trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress based on the facts of the case (para 3).
  Regarding the motion to amend the docketing statement, the Court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate a viable appellate issue. The Court noted that the policies and procedures of the detention center and case law on strip searches were irrelevant given the finding that no strip search occurred. Additionally, the Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding the alleged withholding of evidence by the State in 2003, noting a lack of demonstrated prejudice to the Defendant (paras 4-6).
  The Court concluded that for the reasons stated above and in its notice of proposed disposition, the judgment and sentence of the district court were affirmed (paras 7-8).