Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Decision Information

Citations - New Mexico Laws and Court Rules
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,423 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
State v. Guerra - cited by 150 documents

Decision Content

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.  Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.  Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. A-1-CA-34883

BRADY BRUNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY
Donna J. Mowrer, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
Lauren J. Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1}       Defendant Brady Brunson appeals from his convictions by a jury for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-31-20 (2006) and possession of drug paraphernalia, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-31-25.1 (2001). On appeal, the sole claim of error Defendant raises is that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress all evidence arising out of a traffic stop that Defendant contends was not justified by reasonable suspicion. The State responds by conceding that reasonable suspicion did not justify the traffic stop. Although we are not bound by the State’s concession, having reviewed the record on appeal, we accept it. See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-027, ¶ 9, 284 P.3d 1076 (accepting the state’s concession that there was insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s tampering conviction although appellate courts are not required to do so). We agree with the State that the relevant facts do not support the district court’s conclusion that “the traffic stop [was] based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and remand to the district court to vacate Defendant’s convictions.

{2}       IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.