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

• In August 2012, during a surveillance operation at the Albuquerque Rescue Mission, Officer Daniel Galvan observed Defendant William Serna and another individual, Matthew Valdez, lying on the sidewalk and engaging in what appeared to be drug use. Officer Galvan, from his vantage point on the roof, witnessed Serna take "three hits" from a pipe identified as a crack cocaine pipe and then pass it to Valdez. The arrest team, upon being signaled, approached and retrieved the pipe, which later tested positive for cocaine residue. Serna was subsequently indicted on charges of possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit possession of a controlled substance (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions violated his right against double jeopardy, claimed insufficient evidence to support his convictions, contended he was entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and argued his right to a speedy trial was violated (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Agreed that the Defendant’s conviction for conspiracy should be vacated due to a violation of his right against double jeopardy (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit possession of a controlled substance violated his right against double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.

Disposition

• The conviction for conspiracy to commit possession of a controlled substance was reversed and remanded for the district court to vacate this conviction due to a violation of the Defendant's right against double jeopardy. The court otherwise affirmed the remaining convictions and decisions (para 1).

Reasons

• Briana H. Zamora, Judge: Authored the opinion, agreeing with the Defendant that his conviction for conspiracy violated his right against double jeopardy and should be vacated. The court found no need to address the sufficiency of evidence for the conspiracy conviction due to its vacatur on double jeopardy grounds but upheld the sufficiency of evidence for the possession conviction. The court also found no fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense, no prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, and no violation of the Defendant's right to a speedy trial (paras 6-8, 10-54).
  Linda M. Vanzi, Judge: Concurred with the opinion.
  Kristina Bogardus, Judge (specially concurring): Concurred in the result but expressed concern over the broad interpretation of the statute regarding possession of controlled substances and suggested a review of the statute and its application might be appropriate (paras 55-56).