This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO , 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,944 4 EMMA ALVARADO-NATERA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 7 James Waylon Counts, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 12 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15
MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant Emma Alvarado-Natera appeals from a judgment and sentence, 1 following a jury trial pursuant to which sh e was convicted of one count of possession 2 of methamphetamine and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. [RP 222-23] 3 Unpersuaded by Defendant’s docketing statement, we entered a notice of proposed 4 summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Inresponse to our notice, Defendant filed 5 a memorandum in opposition. After due cons ideration, we remain unpersuaded. We 6 therefore affirm. 7 {2} This Court’s proposed disposition explaine d that while there appeared to be a 8 viable basis for challenging the search of Defendant’s purse, see State v. Light , 2013- 9 NMCA-075, ¶ 42, 306 P.3d 534 (holding the search of the defendant’s purse was “not 10 supported by probable cause because the State failed to prove that the seizure of that 11 individual item was supported by probable cause and it failed to establish a connection 12 between the purse and the reason for the warrant” where the defendant was not subject 13 to the search warrant, but was on the premis es at the time the warrant was executed), 14 without further development of the facts and an examination of the search warrant and 15 supporting affidavit—neither of which were introduced below—we could not 16 conclude that Defendant had made a prim a facie case for ineffective assistance of 17 counsel. [CN 3-4] See State v. Paredez , 2004-NMSC-036, ¶ 22, 136 N.M. 533, 101 18 P.3d 799 (“[W]e have held when the recorddoes not contain all the facts necessary 193 for a full determination of the issue, an in effective assistance of counsel claim is more 1 properly brought through a habeas corpus petition[.]” (internal quotation marks and 2 citation omitted)). In response, Defendant attempts to convince this Court that the 3 facts in the record support suppre ssion of the evidence pursuant to Light . [MIO 11-15] 4 While Defendant has clarified some of the facts and supplied a more complete version 5 of the facts as presented at trial, [MIO 2- 4] we are not persuade d that suppression was 6 warranted. 7 {3} This Court recently addressed the que stion of whether personal property 8 belonging to a visitor, but found on the premis es to be searched, falls within the scope 9 of a valid warrant. Light , 2013-NMCA-075, ¶ 33. In Light , this Court held that where 10 there is nothing to suggest that a visito r’s property—here, a purse—was connected to 11 the premises subject to a s earch warrant or to the illegal activity occurring there, any 12 search of that property was unlawful. Id. ¶ 46. In this case, wh en officers entered the 13 home subject to the search warrant, Defe ndant was found in a bathroom rummaging 14 through her purse with the toilet water running. [MIO 2] The homeowner and subject 15 of the warrant was also in the bathroom, hiding behind the door. [MIO 2] Under these 16 circumstances, we are not convinced that th ere is no connection between the purse and 17 alleged illegal activity occurring at the home. Accordingly, we conclude that 18 Defendant has not presented a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, 194 and we therefore decline to remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary 1 hearing. However, this decision does not preclude Defendant from pursuing habeas 2 corpus relief on these issues. 3 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

_______________________________ 5 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 6
WE CONCUR: 7

___________________________________ 8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 9

_________________________________ 10 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11