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 trafficking methamphetamine, specifically for possession with intent to distribute. The conviction stemmed from an incident where officers found a brown leather satchel containing methamphetamine in the vehicle driven by the Defendant. Additionally, a wallet containing $1,000 in various denominations was found in the vehicle, which officers testified was consistent with drug transactions. The Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew of the methamphetamine's presence or exercised control over it, noting that others had access to the vehicle.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, William G. Shoobridge, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the arrest for violating a noise ordinance was unconstitutional due to the ordinance's vagueness and that the arrest was unreasonable for a misdemeanor not mandating jail time. Additionally, contended that his speedy trial rights were violated and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for trafficking methamphetamine.
• Appellee: Maintained the validity and constitutionality of the noise ordinance as applied, opposed the amendment of the docketing statement regarding the arrest's reasonableness, and argued against the claims of a speedy trial rights violation and insufficiency of evidence for the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the noise ordinance under which the Defendant was arrested is unconstitutionally vague.
• Whether the arrest for a misdemeanor violation of the noise ordinance was unreasonable.
• Whether the Defendant's speedy trial rights were violated.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking methamphetamine.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for trafficking (possession with intent to distribute) methamphetamine and denied the motion to amend the docketing statement.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Cynthia A. Fry and Timothy L. Garcia, the court found:
  The Defendant conceded the noise ordinance's validity and constitutionality as applied but sought to amend the docketing statement to challenge the arrest's reasonableness for a misdemeanor. The court denied this amendment due to lack of preservation, as the Defendant failed to alert the district court to this argument.
  Regarding the speedy trial claim, the court applied the Barker v. Wingo factors and found no error in the district court's denial of the Defendant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.
  On the sufficiency of evidence for the trafficking conviction, the court considered the circumstantial evidence, including the methamphetamine found in the vehicle driven by the Defendant, the cash in denominations consistent with drug transactions, and the Defendant's primary use and personal modifications to the vehicle. The court concluded this evidence was sufficient to support a conclusion that the Defendant was in constructive possession of the methamphetamine.
  The court also addressed the Defendant's arguments regarding the legality of his arrest and the sufficiency of evidence to support his conviction but found no merit in these arguments, thus affirming the conviction and denying the motion to amend the docketing statement.