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 possession of methamphetamine and tampering with evidence. During the trial, the defense counsel declined the jury instruction UJI 14-5031 NMRA, which advises the jury not to infer guilt from a defendant's refusal to testify.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Drew D. Tatum, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued for the inclusion of a new issue in the docketing statement concerning the necessity of a personal waiver for UJI 14-5031 NMRA, which the defense counsel declined without his explicit consent.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant abandoned the issue of sufficiency of the evidence by not responding to the Court's proposed disposition.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue concerning the jury instruction UJI 14-5031 NMRA was viable.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The Defendant’s convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (J. MILES HANISEE, J., and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant abandoned the issue of sufficiency of the evidence by not responding to the Court's proposed disposition, citing State v. Salenas (para 2). Regarding the motion to amend the docketing statement, the Court outlined the criteria for granting such motions and determined that the Defendant's motion did not meet these criteria, particularly because the issue raised was not viable and lacked merit. The Court noted that the defense counsel's decision to decline the jury instruction UJI 14-5031 NMRA without the Defendant's explicit consent could be better addressed as an ineffective assistance claim. However, the Defendant failed to establish that his personal objections were made part of the record or to provide specific authority supporting his contention that the court had an independent duty to inquire about his personal views on the matter (paras 3-4).