This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,848 4 KEVIN LOWE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 7 Gary L. Clingman, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Law Offices of the Public Defender 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assi stant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 SUTIN, Judge. 182 {1} Defendant Kevin Lowe pleaded guilty totrafficking a controlled substance, 1 contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31- 20 (2006), pursuant to a conditional plea 2 agreement in which he reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his 3 motion to suppress evidence. [RP 74] Unpersuaded by Defendant’s docketing 4 statement, we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. 5 Defendant has responded to our notice wi th a memorandum in opposition. Having 6 considered Defendant’s respons e, we remain unpersuaded that the district court erred 7 and therefore affirm. 8 {2} On appeal, Defendant asserts that the di strict court erred in denying his motion 9 to suppress evidence. [DS 3, 6; MIO 2-7] Specifically, he contends that the affidavit 10 submitted in support of the search warrant did not establish probable cause insofar as 11 it failed to satisfy the requirements set fo rth in Rule 5-211 NMRA. [DS 3-6; MIO 12 207] Our notice detailed the relevant fact s and set forth the law that we believe 13 controls. Applying the law to the facts, weproposed to conclude that the affidavit 14 provided the issuing judge with sufficient in formation to establish both the basis of 15 the confidential informant’s knowledge and the confidential informant’s credibility, 16 such that the warrant was supported by probable cause. We do not reiterate our 17 analysis detailed in the notice here and instead focus on the content of the 18 memorandum in opposition. 193 {3} Focusing on the veracity requirement, Defendant’s response to our notice 1 continues to argue that the affidavit in s upport of the search warrant could not support 2 a finding of probable cause. [MIO 4-7] See State v. Vest , 2011-NMCA-037, ¶ 12, 149 3 N.M. 548, 252 P.3d 772 (“[T]he allegations of an informant cannot provide probable 4 cause to issue a search warrant unless both the basis of the informant’s knowledge and 5 the veracity of the informant are demonstrated.”). The affidavit in this case states, 6 “This Confidential Informant has provided me with true and accurate information 7 concerning the sales of drugs, on at leas t three occasions.” [RP 67] Defendant 8 contends that this statement is “so broad as to be meaningless.” [MIO 5-6] We are not 9 convinced. As we explained in our noti ce, our case law indicates this statement 10 provided sufficient information to estab lish the credibility of the informant. See State 11 v. Cordova , 1989-NMSC-083, ¶ 20, 109 N.M. 211, 784 P.2d 30 (concluding that an 12 affidavit was sufficient where it stated that the informant had provided information in 13 the past that the affiant found to be truefrom personal knowledge and investigation); 14 State v. Therrien , 1990-NMCA-060, ¶ 6, 110 N.M. 261, 794 P.2d 735 (“The New 15 Mexico Supreme Court has approved an unadorned allegation that the informant had 16 provided information in the past which the affiant did find to be true and correct from 17 personal knowledge and inve stigation.” (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Barker , 1992-NMCA-117, ¶ 13, 114 194 N.M. 589, 844 P.2d 839; State v. Ramirez , 1980-NMCA-108, ¶ 4, 95 N.M. 202, 619 1 P.2d 1246 (concluding that credibility was established “by the statement in the 2 affidavit that the affiant knows the informant to be reliable becau se he has provided 3 him with reliable information concerning narcotics violations in the past”); State v. 4 Cervantes , 1979-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 12-13, 92 N.M. 643, 593 P.2d 478 (concluding that 5 the credibility of an informant was established by a statement in an affidavit, 6 providing that the informant had provided information in the past week that had 7 resulted in the recovery of stolen property). Additionally, Defendant’s analogies to 8 Vest , 2011-NMCA-037, andTherrien , 1990-NMCA-060, in his memorandum in 9 opposition [MIO 6-7] are likewise unavailing as they are easily distinguishable for the 10 reasons we set forth in our notice in discussing Vest
. 11 {4} In short, Defendant’s response does not assert any new factual or legal 12 argument that persuades this Court that our notice was incorrect regarding the 13 adequacy of the affidavit. Accordingly, on the basis of our proposed analysis and the 14 reasons set forth in this Opinion, we hol d that probable cause supported the issuance 15 of the search warrant in this case, and the district court therefore properly denied 16 Defendant’s motion to suppress. 17 {5} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order denying 18 Defendant’s motion to suppress. 195 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3
WE CONCUR: 4

_______________________________ 5 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 6

_______________________________ 7 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 8