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 indicted on charges related to cocaine trafficking after police discovered incriminating evidence in his apartment during a "knock-and-talk" operation. The police entered the apartment with the Defendant's consent, initially to discuss a neighbor's complaint. Upon entry, they observed drug paraphernalia in plain view. The Defendant's trial counsel moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the police entered without a warrant and lacked probable cause. The motion was denied, and the Defendant appealed, arguing the police exceeded the scope of his consent and also claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not raising this argument earlier.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his apartment, ruling the arrest was lawful and the evidence would not be suppressed.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued on appeal that the district court should have suppressed the evidence because the police exceeded the scope of his consent by entering areas of the apartment beyond what he permitted. Additionally, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to argue the scope of consent at the trial level.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the issue of the scope of the Defendant's consent was not raised at the district court and that the Defendant had effectively consented to the officers' actions, thus their entry and observation of evidence were within the bounds of the given consent.

Legal Issues

• Whether the police exceeded the scope of the Defendant's consent by entering and observing areas of the apartment beyond the living room.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to argue the scope of consent at the trial level.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the Defendant's argument regarding the scope of consent was not preserved for review but made a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was remanded to the district court for a hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Timothy L. Garcia and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, the court held that the Defendant failed to preserve the scope-of-consent argument for appeal but established a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reasoned that a reasonably competent attorney would have moved to suppress the evidence on the basis that the police exceeded the scope of the Defendant's consent, which was limited to entering the apartment to discuss the neighbor's complaints. The traversal of the apartment and observation of evidence in areas beyond the initial consent were deemed beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The court remanded the matter for further proceedings on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim (paras 1-34).