1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: M A R C H 2 , 201 7 4 N O. 34, 165 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 ARMIS B ELLO, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 R oss C . S an ch ez , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Charles J. Gutierr ez, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 Allison H. Jaram illo, Assistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} D ef

en da nt A rm is B el lo a

ppe al s f ro m his co nvi ct ion s for tr af fi ck ing co ca ine by 4 dis tr ibu tio n, c ontrary

to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 30 -3 1- 20( A )( 2) ( 2006 ), a nd t r a f f ic kin g 5 cocaine by

possess ion with intent to distrib ute, c ontrary to Section 30-31-20 (A )(3). 6 D ef en da nt arg ue s th at

( 1) his c onvi ct ion s vi ola te the pr ohi bitio n a ga ins t do ubl e 7 j eo pa rdy , (2 ) the St at e pr es en te d in suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to sus ta in h is c onvi ct ion s, a nd 8 (3 ) he r ec ei ve d in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el
. W e af

fi rm in al l r es pe ct s. 9 BACKGRO UND 10 { 2} On N ovem

ber 11, 2009, an A lbuq uerque Police D epartm ent ( A P D ) und e r c over 1 1 na rc ot i c s t e a m c o n du c t e d a n u n d e r c o v e r o p e r a t i o n i n an a r e a o f t h e c i t y know n to 12 pol ic e fo r na rc oti cs -r el at ed ac tiv ity
. D et ec tiv e D av id Jar am ill o wa s the ca se a ge nt f or 13 the ope ratio n and w as the und er co ve r of fi ce r re spon sib le f

or m ak in g the narc oti c 14 pur ch as es . D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o w as dr oppe d of f in the ta rg et ed

a re a, w he re he 15 obse rv ed

a m an standi ng at the co rn er of an int er se ct ionw ithno a ppare nt p ur

pose a nd 16 who appeare d to be a “ flagger” or a person that so licits sales of narcotics. T he m an 17 w as la te r ide nti fi ed

a s R al ph F ranc o. 18 { 3} De tective Jaram illo approached Franco and asked whether Franco w as 19 “ hold ing”—which is com m on s t re et term inolo gy

for possessing narcotics for sale
.2

1 A ft er D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o in dic at ed tha t he w as loo kin g f

or c ra ck c oc ai ne , F ranc o to ld 2 him that he did no t have any but that he could take Detec tive Jaram illo to ano ther 3 loc at ionto m ak e a pur ch as e. D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o f oll ow ed Fr an co on f

oot to a pa rk ing 4 lot a fewblocks away . O nce they arr ived at the p arking lot, Franco identified 5 De fendant as the person selling the crac k cocaine. De tective Jaram illo gave F ranco 6 a $20 bill and watched as Fr anco approached De fendant and gave him the m oney . I n 7 ex ch an ge , D ef

en da nt g av e Fr an co a n unk no w n su bst an ce . F ranc o r et

ur ne d to 8 De tective Jaram illo and handed hi m a clear ce lloph ane package containing what 9 appeared to be a sm all rock of cr ack cocaine. 10 { 4} A cc or din g to D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o, t he r oc k F ranc o gave him w as ve ry sm al l, 11 “ w ay und er the va lue ” of the m one y

e xc ha nge d. S tay ing “ in r ole ” D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o 12 que sti one d F ranc o abo ut being sho rt ch an ge d, a nd the n he appr oa ch ed D ef en da nt 13 dir ec tly
. D ef

en da nt b ru she d D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o’ s c om pla int of f an d to ld h im

tha t the 14 sm al l r oc k w as a ll he w as ge tti ng. D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o aske d De fe ndant i f he ha d any 15 m or e to s el l, a nd D ef en da nt i ndicat ed th at he did
. D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o bo ught a 16 se co nd r ock from

D ef en da nt f or te n do llars . A s he le ft

the park ing lot , D et ec tiv e 17 Jaram illo gave his team the b u s t s i g n al. De fendant, F ranco, and a third subject 18 ide nti fi ed

onl y a s A gui lar, w er e ar

re ste d.3

1 { 5} T he tw o r oc ks D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o pu rc ha se d w er e la be le d an d ta gge d in to 2 AP D e vidence. Both substances were tested by the AP D c rim e l ab and wer e 3 posi tiv el y

ide nti fi ed

a s c oc ai ne . D ef

en da nt w as in di ct ed

f or tr af fi ck ing c oc ai ne by 4 dis tr ibu tio n, co nspi ra cy to com m it tr af fi ck ing , tr af

fi ck ing co ca ine by

pos se ssi on w ith 5 int en t t o di str ibu te , a nd t am pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce. D ef en da nt w as c onvi ct ed

of 6 tr af fi ck ing co ca ine by dis tr ibu tio n and tr af fi ck ing co ca ine by poss es sio n w ithint en t 7 to dist ribute. 8 DISC US SION 9 Doub le Jeopardy 10 { 6} D ef

en da nt c ont en ds tha t hi s c onvi ct ion s f or tr af fi ck ing c oc ai ne by

dis tr ibu tio n 11 an d po ss essio n of

c oc ai ne w ithint en t t o di str ibu te vio la te the pr ohi bit iona ga ins t 12 do ub le jeop ard y . “ A do ub le jeop ard y ch al le ng e is a co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on of l aw[,] 13 which we re v i ew de novo .” State v. Swick ( Swick II ), 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶

10, 279 14 P. 3d 7 47. “ T he F if

th A m en dm en t of

the U nit ed

S ta te s C onst itu tion[ , ]
. . . m ad e 15 ap pl ic ab le to N ewMe xic o by the F ourte en th A m en dm en t[ , ] ” pr ohi bit s do ubl e 16 j eopa rdy

a nd “ func tio ns i n part

to pr ote ct

ac ri m ina l de fe ndant a ga ins t m ult ipl e 17 puni shm ents f

or the sam e o ff

en s e.” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n 18 om itted). D oubl e j eopardy cases involvin g m

ultip le punish m ents are c las s i fi ed as 19 ei the r doub le de sc ri pti on c as es , “ w he re th e sa m e co nduc t r es ult s inm ult ipl e4

1 convictio ns und er diff erent statutes[, ] ” or unit of prosecution cas es , “ wher e a 2 defendant challenges m ultip le conviction s under the sam e statute.” Id

. 3 { 7} In the presen t case, both p arties assert that Def endant’ s convictio ns und er 4 Su bse ct ion( A )( 2) ( dis tr ibu tio n) a nd S ubse ction( A )( 3) ( poss es sio n w ithint en t t o 5 d i s t ri b u t e) i m

p l i ca t e a d o ub l e d es cr i p t i o n an al ysi s . De fe n d an t re l i es o n t h i s Co u rt ’s 6 de ci sio n in State v. Swick (Swick I) , 2010 -N MC A -0 98, 148 N
. M. 895, 242 P. 3d 4 62, 7 aff’d in pa rt, rev ’d i n p a r t by Swick II , 201 2- N MS C- 018. I n Swick I , the de fe ndant 8 i l l e g a l l y e n t e r e dt h e v i c t i ms ’ h o me , a n do n c e i n s i d e , b e a ta n ds t ab b e dt h e v i c t i ms 9 be fo re t ak in g $ 14 an d t he vi ct im s’ veh ic le
. Swick I , 201 0- N MC A-0 98 , ¶ 3. T he 10 de fe ndant w as c onvi ct ed of one c ount

of se co nd d eg re e m

ur der, tw o c ount s of 11 at te m pt edm ur de r, two co un ts of a gg rav at edba tt ery wit h a de ad ly w eap on , two count s 12 of a ggr av at ed

bur glary by ba tte ry , one c ount

of ag gr av at ed

bur glary w ithade ad ly 13 w ea pon, tw o co unt s of

a rm ed r obbe ry , tw o c ount s of

c onsp ir ac y , a nd u nlaw fu l t ak ing 14 of a m ot orve hi cl e. Id

. ¶ 1. 15 { 8} O n ap pe al , the de fe ndant ar gue d, am ong oth er thi ngs, tha t hi s c onvi ct ion s f or 16 aggravated

burglary invol ving a deadly

we apon, contrary

to Subsection (B) of N MSA 17 1978 , S ection 30-16 -4 (1963), and aggravat ed b u rglary invol ving battery , c ontrary 18 to Subs ect io n (C ) of th e sa m e st at ut e, vi ol at edhi s d ou bl e jeop ard y pro te ct io ns . See 19 Swick I

, 2010-NMC A- 098, ¶ 26. T his Court stated, “ [w ] hen co n viction s under1 3 T h e r e i s af a c tu a l d i s c r e p a n c y

b e tw ee n Swick I

a nd Swick II

that in turn 1 14 ge ne rate s adis cr ep an cy in the appl ic ab le sub se ct ionof S ec tio n 30 -1 6- 4 to the 15 de fe n d an t ’ s a g g r av at e d b ur g l ar y ( de ad ly w ea pon) c onvi ct ion
. O ur

a na ly sis of

S ec tio n 16 30- 16- 4( B) in Swick I wa s based on th e defe ndant “ arm ing hi m self w ith a knife once 17 i n s id e” t he vi ct im s’ ho m e. Swick I , 201 0- N MC A -0 98, ¶

24; see § 30-16-4(B) 18 (“ A ggr av at ed

bur glary c onsi sts of

the unauth or iz ed en tr

y . . . w ithint en t t o c om

m it 19 an y fel on y or thef

t the re in and the pe rs on . . . : a ft er e nte ri ng, arm s hi m se lf

w itha 20 de ad ly

w ea pon[
. ] ”)
. I n Swick II

, t he Supr em e Co ur t’s an al y si s o f Sec ti on 30 -1 6- 4( A) 21 w as ba se d onthe de fe ndant’ s un au tho ri ze d e ntr y int o the vic tim s’ hom e ar m ed w ith 22 a k ni fe. Swick II

, 20 12 -NMSC -018, ¶

¶ 35, 43; see § 30-16-4(A) ( “ Aggravated 23 bur glary co nsi sts of the unauth or iz ed en tr y . . . w ithint en t t o c om

m it an y f el ony or 24 the ft the re in and the pe rs on . . . : is arm ed w ithade ad ly

w ea pon[
. ] ”)
. N one the le ss, the 25 pertinence of Swick I

a nd Swick II is the doub le j eo pa rdy an al y sis f or m or e than on e 26 co nv ic ti on ba se d o n d iff eren t s ub se ct io ns of o ne st at ut e.

5 1 se pa rate sub se ct ion s of asin gle statut e ar e at

iss ue , w e ap ply

the double [] de sc ri pti on 2 analy sis.” Id

. ¶ 27 . App lying a do ub le de sc rip ti on an al y si s t o t he fact s o f th e cas e, we 3 determ ined that the conv ictions d id n o t “ o ffend double jeopardy principles.” Id

. 4 ¶¶ 28- 29. 5 { 9} In Swick II

, the N ewMe xic o S up re m e Co urt gr an te d c er tio rari to ad dr es s a 6 num b e r o f i s s u e s , i n c l u d i n g wh e th e r

th e de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion s un de r Se ct ion30- 16- 7 4 v io la te d d ou bl e jeop ard y. See Swick II , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶

¶ 6, 43- 44. T he 1 8 Suprem e Court applied a unit of prosecution analy sis sin ce the tw o convictio ns were 9 un de r th e sa m e st at ut e. Id

. ¶ 33 ( sta tin g th at

“ [w ] e ap ply

auni t[ ] of

[] pros ecu tio n 10 an al y si s b e c a

u se w e ar e ex am ini ng m

ult ipl e co nvi ct ion s un de r the sa m e sta tut e” ). T he 11 Su pr em e Co urt hel d that the tw o a ggr av at ed bur glary c onvi ct ion s di d vi ola te double 12 jeop ard y . Id

. ¶ 44. T he Su

pr em e Court did not

of fe r ane xpl an at ionor

dir ec tly a ddr es s6

1 the double de sc ri pti on ana ly sis ap pl ie d by thi s C ourt i n Swick I

. F or it s un it of 2 p r o s e c u t i o n s t a n d a r dt h e S up r e m e C o u rtr e l i e don Sta te v . G all eg os , 2011-NMS C3 02 7, ¶ 31 , 1 49 N.M. 70 4, 2 54 P.3d 65 5. G alleg os invol ved three convictions under 4 th e sa m e su bs ect io n o f t h e co ns pi racy sta tu te . Id

. T hus, it appe ar s th at

double 5 j eo pa rdy

c la im s in vol vin g m

ult ipl e co nvi ct ion s un de r dif fe re nt s ta tut es a re to be 6 an al y ze d th e sam e w ay a s do ubl e j eo pa rdy

c la im s ba se d onm

ult ipl e vio la tio ns o f 7 differe nt sub s ec t i o ns und er one statute—using the unit of prosecutio n standard 8 an al y si s. See Swick I

I , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶

10. 9 { 10} W e fo llo w the appr oa chta ke n by our S upr em e Co urt i n Swick II a n dap p l y a 10 uni t of pro se cu tio n ana ly sis to D ef en da nt’ s do ubl e j eo pa rd

y c la im e ve n th ough , li ke 11 the sub se ct ion s of the bur glary statut e in Swick II

, the sub se ct ion s of

the tr af fi ck ing 12 s t a t u t e ha ve di ffer en t el em en ts . See A guilera v. Palm Harbor Homes, I nc. , 200 2- 13 N MS C- 029, ¶ 6, 132 N
. M. 715 , 54 P
. 3d 9 93 ( re co gni zi ng tha t the Co urt of Appe al s 14 is bou nd bySuprem e Court prec edent). 15 { 11} “ In uni t of

pr ose cu tio n c as es , the de fe ndant i s c ha rg ed w ithm ult ipl e vio la tio ns 16 of asin gle statut e ba se d up on a ct s th at m ay or m ay not be co nsi de re d a si ngl e co ur se 17 of conduct.” St a t e v . Se na , 2 01 6- N MC A -0 62, ¶ 8, 376 P
. 3d 8 87. T o de te rm ine the 18 correc t unit o f prosecution, w e consider “ whether the [L ] egislature intended 19 puni shm ent for the entire co urse of conduct or for ea ch discrete ac t.” Swaffor d v.7

1 Sta te , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶ 8, 112 N
. M. 3, 810 P
. 2d 1 223. F ir st, c ourts lo ok to the 2 langua ge of

the statut e to de te rm ine if the L eg isl at

ur e ha s de fi ne d th e uni t of 3 pr os ecu ti on . Swick II

, 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶

33. I f so, the inquir

y is co m ple te a nd 4 pr oc eed s n o fu rth er. Id

. Whe re the uni t of prose cu tio n is not c le ar ly de fi ne d inthe 5 language of the statute, courts proceed to analy ze “ whether a defe ndant’s ac ts are 6 se pa rat edby suf

fic ie nt in di ci a o f di st in ct ne ss to jus ti fy m ul ti pl e p un is hm en ts .” 7 G all eg os , 2011-NMS C-027, ¶ 31 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 8 { 12} Inthi s ca se , w e do not re ac h the se co nd part of the te st bec au se w e co nc lud e 9 that the Le gislature defined the unit of p rosecution to be one transfer of a controlled 10 su bs ta nc e. See Swick I I , 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ 33 (c onc lud ing tha t fo r Se ct ion30- 16- 11 4(A) and (C) the Le gislature defined the unit of prosecution to be an unlawful entry 12 w ithint en t t o c om

m it a fe lon y

the re in)
. S ec tio n 30 -3 1- 20( A ) pr ovi de s inpertin en t 13 part: “ [a] s used in the Controlled Substances A ct, ‘ traff ic’ m eans the: (1) m anufacture 14 of a co nt ro l l e d s ub st an ce . . . ; (2 ) di st rib ut io n, s al e, ba rte r orgi vi ng away of . . . a 15 co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e . . . ; or (3 ) poss es sio n [of a con tr oll ed subs tanc e] w ith int en t t o 16 dis tr ibu te . ” H er e, D ef en dant w as c onvi ct ed

of one c ount

e ac h o f tr af

fi ck ing by 1 7 di s t r i b u t i o n a n d t r a f

f i c k i n g b y p o s s e s s i o n w i t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e . A s u s e d in the 18 Co ntr oll ed

S ubst an ce s A ct , to “ ‘ dis tr ibu te ’ m eans to deli ve r” an d to “ ‘ de liv er ’ m eans8

1 the a c tu a l , c o n s t r

u c t i v e o r a t t e m

p t e d t r a n s f

e r [ o f a c o n t r o l l e d s ub s t a n c e ] f r om one 2 pe rs on to an ot he r.” NMSA 1 97 8, § 30 -3 1- 2( G), (J) (20 09 ). 3 { 13} In Sta te v . B orj a- G uzm an , thi s C ourt no ted tha t the “ va ri ous m eans o f 4 traff icking and the broad definition of deliver evinces a legislative intent to authorize 5 pr ose cu tio n and p uni shm en t f or e ac h se pa rate tr an sf

er of ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce.” 6 1996 -N MC A -0 25, ¶

13, 121 N
. M. 40 1, 91 2 P. 2d 2 77. I n B orj a- G uzm an , the 7 de fe ndant g av e und ercover a ge nts asa m

ple of m etha m phe ta m ine a nd a

sa m ple of 8 he ro in
. Id

. ¶ 2. Appr oxi m at el y fo ur hour s lat er , the de fe ndant m et und er co ve r ag en ts 9 in th e sa m e lo cat io n a nd so ld th em qu an ti ti es of th e sa m e su bs ta nc es . Id

. ¶ ¶ 2- 3. T he 10 de fen da nt was c on vi ct edof m ul ti pl e tr affi ck in g o ffen se s. Id

. ¶ 4. H e ch al le nge d th e 11 co nvi ct ion s ondouble j eo pa rdy gr ound s, ar gui ng tha t the dis tr ibu tio n of a sa m ple of 1 2 ac o n t r o l l e ds ub s t a n c e a n dt h e s ub s e qu e n ts a l e o f t h e s a me s ub s t a n c e a tt h e s a me 13 pl ace a nd to th e sa m e p ers on or per so ns , co ns ti tu te d on ly on e tr an sf er. Id

. ¶ 14. T his 14 Co urt r ej ec te d th at

a rg um en t ho ldi ng th at “ the [ L ] eg isl at ur e cl earl y

int en de d, in its 15 en ac tm en t of

S ec tio n 30 -3 1- 20 c ri m ina liz ing dr ug tra ff ic kin g, to au tho ri ze se pa rate 16 pr ose cu tio n and p uni shm en t f or e ac h in div idu al tr an sf

er o r de liver

y und er the 17 circum stances wher e the transfe r is not contem poraneous.” Id

. ¶ 26. 18 { 14} In the present case, De fendant’ s convictio ns arose from two separate transfer s 19 of ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce. T he f

ir st transf

er oc curr ed w he n D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o9

1 purchased the first rock cocaine from De fendant through Franco. T he second transfer 2 oc curr ed

m om en ts l at er w he n D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o pu rc ha se d th e se co nd r oc k c oc ai ne 3 from De fendant directly . W

hile the two s ales o ccurre d within a short period of tim e, 4 the y did not oc cur co nte m por an eo usl y an d fa ll w ith in the L eg isl at ur e’ s auth or iz at ion 5 fo r se pa rat e p un is hm en t. Se e id. 6 { 15} D ef

en da nt arg ue s that the tw o purc ha se s we re pa rt of one ong oin g tr an sa ct ion 7 s i n ce t h e s ec o n d p u r ch as e w o u l dn o th av e o cc u rr ed , b u tfo r D et ec t i v e J ar amil l o ’s 8 dissatis faction with t he first p urchase. W e disagree. Sec tion 3 0-31-20(A)( 2) defines 9 th e u ni t o f pr os ecu ti on as o ne co nt ro ll edsu bs ta nc e tr an sf er. Here , th ere w e r e two 10 disti n ct exchanges between D efendant and De tective Jaram illo. In eac h exchange, 11 D ef en da nt transf

er re d adis tin ct

quanti ty of c oc ai ne to D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o in 12 ex ch an ge f

or adis tin ct

sum of m one y . T he r ea son fo r the se co nd p ur ch as e is n ot 13 ge rm an e to o ur

a na ly sis
. W e co nc lud e tha t D ef e n d an t’ s c onvi ct ion s un de r Se ct ion30- 1 4 3 1
- 2 0 ( A ) ( 2 ) a n d( 3 ) d o n o tv i o l a t e d o ub l e je o p a r d y. 15 Suf ficienc y of the Evidenc e 16 { 16} D ef

en da nt c ha lle nge s th e su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid en ce to supp ort bo th 17 traff icking con viction s. D efendant asserts that possessio n of coca i n e is a re quired 18 el em en t of

both tr af fi ck ing of fe nse s w ith w hic h he is ch ar ge d, an d he cl ai m s tha t the 19 ev ide nc e w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh p oss es sio n be ca

use oth er than D et ec tiv e10

1 Jaram illo’s testim ony , the S tate did not p resent any evidence that h e possessed 2 co ca ine
. W e ar e unpe rs ua de d. 3 { 17} “ T he te st f

or suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce is w he the r subs tantial e vid en ce of 4 ei the r a dir ec t or

c ir cu m stanti al na tur e ex ist s to sup port a ve rd ic t of

gui lty be y ond a 5 reasonable d o u b t wi t h respect to every elem ent essential to a convictio n.” State v. 6 Torrez , 201 3- N MS C- 034, ¶ 40, 305 P
. 3d 9 44 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n 7 om itt ed ). O ur

S upre m e Co urt ha s e xpr es sly e sta bli she d atw o- ste p pr oc es s f or 8 ap pl y in g t hi s t es t. Sta te v . G arc ia , 2 01 6- NMSC -0 34 , ¶ 24 , 3 84 P.3 d 10 76 . F irs t we 9 m ust “ drawevery

rea sonable inference in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict.” I d. Then we 10 “ ev al ua te w he the r the ev ide nc e, so vie w ed , sup ports the ve rd ic t be y ond a re as ona ble 11 doub t.” Id

. 12 { 18} In or de r to f

ind D ef en da nt g uil ty

of tr af fi ck ing c oc ai ne by

pos se ssi on w ith 13 int en t t o di str ibu te , the S ta te ha d to pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t onor

about 14 Novem

ber 11, 2009, D efendant had cocaine in his pos session , knowing it wa s 15 cocaine, or believing it to be som e d rug or o ther s ubstance the pos session of w hich 1 6 is re gul at e do r

p r o h i b i t e db y

l a w , a n dt h a tD e f

e n d a n ti n t e n d e dt o t r a n s f e r i tto 17 another. W ith regard to this charge, D etective Jaram illo testified th at Franco agreed 18 to ta ke h i m

t o al oc a t i onw he r e h e c ou l d pur c ha se c r a c k c oc a i ne . F r a nc o i de nt i fied 19 De fendant as the person selling the cra ck cocaine. De tective Jaram illo gave Franco11

1 a $20 bil l and w at ch ed

a s D ef en da nt r em ove d an un know n su bst an ce f ro m his m outh 2 an d gave it

to Fr an co in ex ch an ge f or the buy m one y . F ranc o r et

ur ne d a nd gav e 3 De tective Jaram illo a package co ntainin g a sm all rock, which later te sted pos itive as 4 co cai ne . Fro m

th is tes ti m on y , a ju ry

co ul d re as on ab ly infe r th atth e u nk no wn 5 s ub s t a n c e D e f

e n d a n tg a v e t o F r a n c o i n e x c h a n g e f o r t h e b u y mo n e y w a s t h e s a me 6 ro ck of c oc ai ne tha t Fr an co ga ve to D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o. I n othe r w or ds, aj ur y c oul d 7 re as ona

bly inf er that D ef

en da nt w as in poss es sio n of the f ir st r oc k of

c oc ai ne a nd 8 int en de d to tr an sf

er it to D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o th ro ugh Fr an co . 9 { 19} T he j ur

y ins tr uc tio n ontr af

f ic kin g by dis tr ibu tio n pr ovi de d th at , in or de r to f ind 10 D ef en da nt g uil ty

of tr af fi ck ing c oc ai ne by

dis tr ibu tio n, the S ta te ha d to pr ove be y ond 11 a re asonable dou bt that on or about Novem ber 11, 20 09, D efendant transfer red 12 co ca ine to an oth er , kn owi ng th at it w as c oc ai ne , or

be lie vin g it

to be som e dr

ug o r 13 oth er subs tanc e the poss es sio n of w hic h is re gul at ed or pr ohi bit ed by law . D et ec tiv e 14 Ja ram ill o te sti fi ed

tha t a ft er

D ef en da nt b ru she d of

f his c om pla int s a bou t the f

ir st 15 pur ch as e, D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o a ske d if D ef en da nt h ad

m or e to s el l, a nd D ef

en da nt 1 6 co nf i r m e dt h a th e d i d
. D e f

e n d a n ts o l dD e t e c t i v e J a r a m i l l o as e c o n dr o c kf o r $ 1 0, 17 re m ovi ng the pa ck ag e fr om his m outh, e xc ha ngi ng i t f or a$20 bil l and g ivi ng 18 D et ec tiv e Ja ram ill o $1 0 in ch an ge . Ba se d on this te sti m ony , aj ur y c oul d r ea sona

bly 19 in fer t ha t Def

en da nt tra ns ferr edco cai ne di rect ly to Det ect iv e Ja ram il lo
.12

1 { 20} Dr aw ing all reasonable infere nces from the evidence in favor of the ver dict, as 2 we m u s t , we co n cl u d e t h at t h e e v i d en ce i s s u ff i ci en tt o s up p o rt De fe n d an t ’s 3 co nv ic ti on s fo r tr affi ck in g b y di st rib ut io n a nd tra ffi ck in g wi th in te nt to di st rib ut e. 4 Ineff ective A ssistance of C ounsel 5 { 21} D ef

en da nt a sse rt s th at

he r ec ei ve d in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el be ca

use his 6 at tor ne y f ai le d to cal l ke y

de fe nse w itn es se s. “ W e re vie w c la im s of ine ff ec tiv e 7 assistance of counsel de novo.” State v. D ylan J. , 2009-NMC A- 027, ¶ 33, 145 N. M. 8 719, 204 P
. 3d 4 4. 9 { 22} “ T he S ixth A m en dm en t t o th e U nit ed St at es Co nst itu tio n, appl ic ab le to the 10 sta te s thro ug h th e Fo urte en th A m en dm en t, guarante es . . . the r igh t t o th e ef fe ct ive 11 assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. L eMaster , 2001 -N MS C- 013, ¶ 16, 130 N
. M. 179 , 12 21 P
. 3d 1 032 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). “ Whe n an in ef fe ct ive 13 as sis tanc e cl ai m

is fi rs t r ai se d ondir ec t a ppe al, [ th e ap pe lla te c ourts] e va lua te the 14 facts that are part of the record. ” Sta te v . R oy bal , 200 2-NMS C-027, ¶ 19, 132 N. M. 15 657, 54 P.3d 61. “ A prim a fa cie ca se of ineffe ctive assistance is m ade by showing that 16 de fe nse c ouns el ’ s pe rf orm an ce f

el l be lowthe standard

of ar ea sona

bly co m pe te nt 17 at to rn ey

an d, d ue to th e d e f

i ci en t p erfo rm an ce, t he de fen se was p reju di ced .” 18 P att er son , 2 0 0 1
- N M S C
- 0 1 3 , ¶ 1 7 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n ma rk s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. “A 19 pr im a fa ci e ca se f

or ineff ect iv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el is not

m ad e if the re is a13

1 plausib le, rational strategy or tactic to explain

the counsel’s c ondu ct.” Ly tle v . J orda n , 2 2001 -N MS C- 016, ¶ 26 , 130 N
. M. 198 , 22 P
. 3d 6 66 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 3 citation om itted). 4 { 23} A s to the f

ir st p ro ng, “ [d ] ef

en se c ouns el ’ s pe rf

orm an ce is de fi ci en t i f it fa lls 5 be lowa n ob

j ec tiv e standard

of r ea sona ble ne ss [,] ” usua lly

j udge d a s an a ct ion 6 contrary

to “ th at of a r easonably

com petent attorney .” Dy lan J. , 200 9- N MC A -0 27, 7 ¶ 37. O ur re vie w of co unse l’ s per fo rm an ce is “ hig hly de fe re nti al ” in tha t coun se l i s 8 “ str ongl y

pr es um ed

to ha ve r en de re d a de qua te a ss is ta nc e an d m ad e al l si gni fi cant 9 decisions in the exercise o f rea sonable professio nal j udgm ent.” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n 10 m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). T he re fo re , a de fe ndant “ m ust ove rc om e the pr es um

pti on 11 that, under the circ um stances, the challenged a ction m ight be considered sou nd trial 12 str at eg y.” State v. H

unter , 200 6- N MS C- 043, ¶ 13, 140 N
. M. 406 , 143 P
. 3d 1 68 13 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted ). “ If ther e is a plausible, ra tional 14 str at eg y or ta ct ic to ex pla in co unse l’ s co nduc t, a pr im a fa ci e ca se fo r in eff ec tiv e 15 assistance is not m ade.” Dy lan J. , 20 09 -NMCA- 02 7, ¶ 3 9. 16 { 24} A s to the se co nd pr ong, “ [a ] de fe nse is pr ej udi ce d if , as ar es ult

of the de fi ci en t 17 pe rf orm an ce , the re w as a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity tha t . . . the r es ult

of the tr ia l w oul d 18 have b een d iffer ent.” Id

. ¶ 38 ( om iss ionin or igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 19 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ A r ea sona bl e pr oba bil ity is one tha t i s su ff

ic ie nt t o un de rm ine14

1 confidence in the outcom e. ” Id

. ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). T he 2 de fi ci en t pe rf

orm an ce “ m

ust re pr es en t so se ri ous a fa ilure of the a dve rs ar ia l pr oc es s 3 th atit un de rm in es jud ic ia l co nf id en ce i n t he accu racy and rel ia bi li ty of th e o ut co m e.” 4 Id

. (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 5 { 25} D ef

e n d a n t c l a i m s i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l o n t h e g r o u n d s t h athis 6 attorney

did no t call Fr anco and Aguilar as witnesses at trial. Def endant asserts that 7 the m enw er e ne ce ssary de fe nse w itn es se s w hose te sti m ony w oul d li ke ly

ha ve 8 excul p at ed h i m . How ever, De fendant does not point to any fac ts in the record that 9 supp ort this c la im
. T hus, D ef enda nt ha s no t m ad e a pr im a fa ci e show ing of 10 ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el
. H ow ev er , “ thi s de ci sio n do es not pr ec lud e [the 11 d] ef en da nt f ro m pur sui ng h ab ea s c or

pus pr oc ee din gs on this iss ue sho uld he be able 12 to garner evidence to supp ort his claim s.” Sta te v . B ernal , 2006 -N MS C- 050, ¶ 36, 140 13 N.M. 64 4, 1 46 P.3d 28 9. 14 CON CLU SION 15 { 26} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , D ef

en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion s are a ff irm ed
. 16 { 27} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
17 18 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e15

1 WE CO NCUR:
2 3 JONA THA N B . S UTIN , Jud ge
4 5 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e