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: F eb ru ar

y 18, 201 5 4 N O. 32, 669 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 JAC KIE WINT ERS , 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DI STRI CT COURT OF LE A COUNTY 11 Wi lli am G. W. S ho ob ri dg e, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 M ar k S an ch ez , D ist ri ctJu dg e 13 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 Ke nneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 16 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 17 for Appellee 18 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 19 Sergio V iscoli, Appellate D efender 20 B. Douglas W ood III, Assistant Appellate D efender 21 San ta Fe, NM 22 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 FR Y, Judge. 3 { 1} D e f

e n d a n tapp eal s h is co nv ic ti o n s f o r l a r c e n y an dc r i mi n a l d a mag e t o p r o p e rt y. 4 The c onvi ctions arose ou t of t he sam e in cident, altho ugh the charges were not joined 5 f o r t r i a l

. I n h i s l a r c e n y tr i a l , De f e n d a n tu n s u c c e s s f

u l l y c h a l l e n g e dt e s t i mo n y b y a 6 she ri ff ’ s de puty that sh oe pr int s f

ound at the sc en e w er e sim ilar to s hoe pr int s f ound 7 out sid e D ef

en da nt ’s r es ide nc e. H e w as sub se que ntl y f ound gui lty

. F oll ow ing his 8 co nvi ct ionf

or larc en y , D ef

en da nt con dit ion al ly ple ad ed no con te st to the ch ar ge of 9 crim inal dam age to property (CD P), reser

ving an unstated issue for appeal. On appeal 10 fr om both c onvi ct ion s, D ef

en da nt ar gue s tha t D ep uty Ja son D au ghe rty ’ s sh oe pr int 1 1 te s t i m o n y

w a s i m p r o p e r l a y w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y . W e c o n c l u d e t h a tb e c au s e D e put y 12 D au ghe rty

did not pr ovi de af

ound at ionf

or his opi nio n th at the shoe pr int s a t i ssu e 13 w er e sim ilar, the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc ret ion in a llo w ing him to giv e thi s 14 opin ion. W e theref

ore re verse his convictio n for larc en y . D efendant further argues 15 tha t r ev er sa l of

his larc en y

c onvi ct ionr equir es r ev er sa l of his c ondi tio na l pl ea

in the 16 CD P ca se . H ow ev er , be ca use D ef en da nt ne ith er re se rv ed nor pr es er ve d an iss ue f

or 17 appeal during hi s no contest plea in the CD P ca se, w e uphold the plea.2

1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 2} La te one evening, the forem an of an oil extraction com pany operating in Lea 3 County , N ewMexico, r eceived an ale rt that o ne of t he com pany ’ s pum

ps had sto pped 4 runni ng. Upon ar

ri vin g a t the sc en e, a com pa ny em plo y ee dis co ve re d th at

the “ fl uid 5 end” of an inj ection pum p had been rem oved and was in the bed of a pick-up truck 6 o n s i t e . Th e p i c k

- up t r u c k d i dn o tb e l o n g t o a n y o f t h e e mp l o ye e s o f

t h e c o mp a n y. 7 Ina ddi tio n to the the ft

of the fl uid en d, the ins tr um en t pane l of a com

pa ny ba ckhoe 8 ne ar by w as da m ag ed

. 9 { 3} T he c om

pa ny r ep orte d th e the ft , a nd D ep uty D au ghe rty

of the L ea Co unty 10 Sh er if f’ s D ep ar tm en t arr ive d to inv es tig at e. A lth oughthe k ey s to the tr uc k w er e in 11 the ignit ion, the truck wa s inop erable. De putyDa ugherty ran the license plate num

ber 12 of the tr uc k and d et er

m ine d th at

it be lon ge d to D efendant

. D ep uty D au ghe rty

a lso 13 tookphoto s of differ ent sets of shoe p ri n t s at the scene that he believed w ere 14 potenti ally

associated with susp ects of the cr im e. He believed they we re a ssociated 15 with the suspe ct s because he elim inated shoe print s he believed m atched other 16 em plo y ee s and l awe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ci al s a t the c ri m e sc en e an d be ca use the sh oe 17 pr in ts were i n c lo se pro xi m it y to th e truc k. 18 { 4} De putyDa

ugherty then drove to Defe ndant’s residence to secure the ar ea 19 pe ndi ng the iss ua nc e of ase ar chw ar

rant. Whil e at

the r es ide nc e, D ep uty

D au ghe rty3

1 obse rv ed shoe pr int s outsi de the re sid en ce tha t he be lie ve d w er e sim ilar to the sho e 2 pr int s he pho tog ra

phe d a t the c ri m e sc en e. D ep uty D au ghe rty

did not ta ke pho tos of 3 the shoe prints at th e re s i d en ce, but oth er investigators on s ite did. D efendant w as 4 subs equently

arr ested and charged with one count of l arce ny and one count of CD P. 5 Pr ocedur al History 6 { 5} For unknown reasons, D efendant’ s charges w ere separated into two case s 7 be fo re tw o di ff

er en t j udge s in dis tr ic t c ourt. T he larc en y c as e w en t t o tr ia l f

ir st. 8 Be fo re tr ia l, D ef

en dant ar gue d th at

D ep uty D au ghe rty

sho uld be pr ec lud ed

f ro m 9 te sti fy ing a s to the sim ilari ty be tw ee n th e shoe pr int s at the cr im e sc en e an d th ose he 10 observed a t

D e f e nd ant ’ s r e si de nce because the e vidence was ir relevant w ithou t expert 11 testim ony

establishin g any

alleged sim ilarities betwee n the prints. The district court 12 denied the m otion . D efendant also objec ted to the testim ony at trial because there wa s 13 no found ation for De putyDau g h er t y’ s testim ony that the shoe prints we re 14 “ subs tantially

the sam e. ” T he j ury

convicted Def

endant on th e larc eny

charge. 15 { 6} A f

ewday s a ft er

his c onvi ct ionin the larc en y c as e, D ef

en da nt p le ad ed

no 16 co nte st t o th e ch ar ge of CDP. Dur ing the ple a he ar ing , D ef en da nt i ndi ca te d th at

he 17 w ish ed

to en te r int o ac ondi tio na l no c ont es t pl ea to re se rv e aniss ue f

or appe al

. 18 Whe n a ske d w ha t part ic ular iss ue he w as r es er vin g, D ef en da nt s ta te d th at

whi le he 19 be lie ve d th at

the re w as a n a pp ealabl e iss ue , he did not w an t t o si ngl e out

one4

1 pa rt ic ular iss ue unt il he r ev ie w ed the r ec or d. D ef

en da nt f urthe r ind ic at ed

that he 2 wished to join the larc eny and CDP cases on appeal. The prosecutio n did no t objec t 3 to D ef en da nt’ s co ndi tio na l ple a. T he dis tr ic t co urt a cc ep te d D ef en da nt’ s no c ont es t 4 plea, notin g that the plea was “ conditi oned up on successful prosecuti on of an appeal 5 re ve rs ing a n un sta te d is sue . ” D ef en da nt n owappe al s. 6 DISC US SION 7 De put y Daugher ty’s Opin ion Testim ony w as Im proper 8 { 7} D ef

en da nt arg ue s that

D ep uty D au ghe rty ’ s te sti m ony

r eg ar din g th e sim ilari ty 9 be tw ee n sh oe pr int s f

ound a t the sc en e of th e th eft a nd s hoe pr int s f ound out sid e 10 D ef en da nt’ s r es ide nc e w as im pr ope r lay w itn es s opini on tes tim ony . W e re vie w thi s 11 is su e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Sta te v . L una , 197 9- N MC A -0 48, ¶ 18, 92 N

. M. 680 , 12 594 P. 2d 3 40. W e co nc lud e tha t be ca use no fou nd at ionw as la id f or D ep uty 1 3 D au g h e rt y’ s o p i n i o n t h a ts h o e p r i n t s f o u n d a t t h e s c e n e w e r e s ub s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a me 14 to sho e prints found near Defe ndant’s r esidence, his op inion constitu ted im proper lay 15 wit ne ss op in io n t es ti m on y . 16 { 8} Rule 11-701 NMRAgoverns the adm issio n of opini on testim ony b y lay 17 w itn es se s. T he Ru le state s, 18 If

aw itn es s is not te sti fy ing a s an e xpe rt , te sti m ony in the f orm of 19 opi nio n is li m ite d to one that i s 20 A. rat io na ll y ba se d o n t he wit ne ss ’s per cep ti on ,5

1 B. he lp fu l t o c le ar ly und er standi ng the w itn es s’ s te sti m ony or to 2 de te rm ini ng a

f ac t i n is sue , a nd 3 C. not ba se d onsc ie nti fi c, te ch nic al or oth er spe ci al iz ed

kno w le dge 4 wit hi n t he sco pe of Rul e 1 1- 70 2 NM RA. 5 { 9} G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , o u r S up r e me C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e dt h a ti n s o me 6 ci rc um stanc es sho e pr int co m pa ri son is w ith in the pur

vie w of pe rm iss ibl e la y

w itn es s 7 op in io n t es ti m on y . Se e Sta te v. R onde au , 1976 -N MS C- 044, ¶¶ 42- 43, 89 N

. M. 408 , 8 553 P. 2d 6 88 ( hol din g th at a de te ct ive co uld pr ovi de non -e xpe rt opi nio n te sti m ony 9 re ga rd ing sim ilari tie s betw ee n shoe pr int s foun d at the sc en e and shoe s se iz ed f ro m 10 the de fe ndant) ; State v. M artin ez , 1932 -N MS C- 051, ¶¶ 7- 9, 36 N

. M. 360 , 15 P

. 2d 6 85 11 (h old ing that l ay

w itn es s te sti m ony

c om pa ri ng tra ck s fo und at

the c ri m e sc en e w ith 12 the de fe ndant’ s sh oe s w as a dm iss ibl e) ; Sta te v . A nc he ta , 191 5- N MS C- 003, ¶ 10, 20 13 N

. M. 19, 145 P

. 108 6 ( hol din g th at te sti m ony

by lay wit ne ss r eg ar din g hi s 14 observation s of tracks at the crim e scene with tracks known to be the defendant’ s was 15 proper lay

witness opinio n testim ony ). While t h es e ca ses engage in a som ew hat 1 6 cu rs o ry an al ys i s o f t h e i s s u e, we g l ea n fr o m t h em th at , a tl ea s t , t h e l ay wi t n es s ’s 17 opi nio n r eg ar din g th e sim ilari tie s be twee n th e pr int s or sho es a t i ssu e m

ust de ri ve 18 fr om pe rs ona l ob se rv at ionor

e xa m ina tio n of the sim ilari tie s of the tr ac ks be lie ve d to 19 be th e su sp ect ’s a nd a sh oe or pr in t kn own to be th e d efen da nt ’s. Se e R onde au , 197 6- 20 N MS C- 044, ¶

43 ( “ [A ] w itn es s who ha s m ad e m ea sur em en ts o f the tr ac ks, a nd the6

1 fo ot o r shoe of

the de fe ndant, or

w ho h as m ad e som e suc h c om pa ri son be tw ee n th e 2 tr ac ks and the shoe s of the de fe ndant, [ suc h] a s pl ac ing the sho e in the tr ac ks, or w ho 3 ha s de ta ile d pe cu liari tie s in the tr ac ks on the gr ound w hic h c or

re spon d w iththe sho es , 4 or with the prov en o r ad m itted tracks of the defendant, that in either of these cases 5

. . . the witness m ay

give his op in i o n as to the sim ilarity of the trac ks.” ( internal 6 q u o t at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; Martinez , 19 32 -NMSC -0 51 , ¶ 9 (“ [A ] w itn es s 7 w ho h as m ea sure d the tr ac ks and c om pa re d hi s m ea sur em en t w iththe sho es of the 8 accu se d m ay

tes ti fy to th e res ul ts an d t ha t a c or res po nd en ce ex is ts in si ze an d s hape .” 9 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 10 { 10} This principle appears rooted in the concept that “ opin i o n testim ony of lay 11 w itn es se s is ge ne ra lly co nf ine d to m at te rs w hic h are w ith in the c om m on know le dge 12 and experience of an average per son.” Garcia v. B orden, Inc. , 199 3- N MC A -0 47, ¶ 10, 13 115 N

. M. 486 , 853 P.2d 737. T ha t i s, c er ta in s im ilari tie s be tw ee n sh oe pr int s, 14 inc lud ing tre ad feature s and s iz e, c anbe c onsi de re d, in som e ins tanc es , dis tin ct ive 15 en ou gh to be read il y ap pa ren t to an av erag e o bs erv er. Se e Lu na , 197 9- N MC A -0 48, 16 ¶ 19 ( sta tin g th at fo r a lay w itn es s’ s op ini on t o be ba se d onthe w itn es s’ s pe rc ep tio n, 17 the opin ion m

ust be one a “ norm al p er son would form on the basis o f the observed 18 fac ts” ); Pe ople v. M

agla ya , 6 C a l

. R

ptr . 3 d 15 5, 1 58 ( C t

. App . 2 00 3) ( st a t i ng that 19 w he n “ shoe pr int s are so l ar ge an d the poin ts of sim ilari ty so obvio us, the c om pa ri son7

1 is a m at te r of

non ex pe rt

r athe r th an of

e xpe rt te sti m ony . ” (e m

pha sis , a lte ratio n, 2 intern al quo ta tio n m ar ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ))

. H ow ev er , be ca use thi s w ill not 3 al w ay s be the c as e, we ag ree w ithj ur isd ic tio ns tha t r equir e a fo undatio n to be la id 4 before a

lay witness m ay testify to the purported sim ilarities betwee n prints. In such 5 a ca se , a“ lay

w itn es s m ay

be pe rm itt ed

to ex pr es s hi s or

he r opi nio n a s to the 6 sim ilar ity

of f oot pr int s if it c anbe sho w n th at

his or he r co nc lus ion s are ba se d on 7 m ea sur em en ts o r pe cu liariti es in the pr int s th at a re r ea dil y

r ec ogni za

ble a nd w ith in 8 the capabilities of a lay witness to observe.” Sta te v . J el ls , 559 N

. E

. 2d 4 64, 471 ( O hio 9 1990 ). A s th e co urt i n Je lls e xpl ai ne d, “ T his m eans tha t the pri nt pa tt ern is 10 suf fi cien tl y la rge an d di sti nc t so that no de ta ile d m ea sur em en ts, sub tle a na ly sis or 11 scientific determ ination is needed.” Id

. Wit h o u t s u ch a fo u n d at i o n , th e la y wi t n es s ’s 12 op in io n t es ti m on y

is ou ts id e th e b ou nd s o f Ru le 11 -7 01

. 13 { 11} Inthi s c as e, D ef en da nt o bj ec ts t o D ep uty

D au ghe rty ’ s op ini on tha t sh oe pr int s 14 phot ographed at the scene we re substantiallysim ilar to shoe prints p hoto graphed 15 outsi de De fendant’ s residence. At tr ial, De puty Daugherty testified that he observed 16 shoe pr int s a t the sc en e and at D ef en da nt’ s re sid en ce a nd, ba se d onhis obs er va tio ns, 17 the sho e pr int s w er e “ subs tanti al ly the sa m e. ” N o oth er fo undatio n fo r the a dm iss ion 18 of this op inion wa s given. The State late r m oved to adm it pho to g ra p h s of three8

1 dif fe re nt s hoe pr int s take n by D ep uty D au ghe rt

y at th e sc en e but

not pho tog ra phs 2 taken at the residence. 3 { 12} The f

ound ation laid for De puty Daugherty ’ s opin ion re garding the sim ilarities 4 be tw ee n th e shoe pr int s w as ins uf fi ci en t. Depu ty D au ghe rty did not te sti fy to the 5 obse rv at ion s he m ad e re ga rd ing the sim ilari tie s inthe pr int s or a ny oth er pe cu liari tie s. 6 He m erely

testified that he observed sho e prints in bo th places and tha t they we re 7 “ subs tanti al ly

the sa m e. ” In de ed , not

onl y did D ep uty Daug herty

f ai l t o st at e the 8 obse rv at ion s th at

sup porte d his opini on, his te sti m ony fa ile d to spe ci fy w hic h of the 9 thr ee sho e pr int s—p hot ogr ap hs o f w hic h w er e la te r publ is he d to the j ur y —he 10 be li ev ed m at ch ed sh oe pr in ts la te r ob se rv edou ts id e Defen da nt ’s res id en ce. T his is 11 prob le m at ic be ca

use it doe s no t e sta

bli sh tha t hi s op ini on w as “ ratio na lly ba se d on 12 [h is] pe rc ep tio n[ s] ” or “ he lpf ul to cle ar ly unde rs tandi ng [hi s] te sti m ony [. ] ” Ru le 11- 13 70 1( A), (B). 14 { 13} Furthe rm or e, D ep uty D au gher ty ’ s te sti m ony

f ai le d to e sta

bli sh a f ound at ion 15 lin kin g th e shoe pr int s he obs er ve d ou tsi de D ef

en da nt’ s r es ide nc e wit h De fe ndant. 16 In Pe ople v. Z

ismer , the c ourt st at ed

that “ [t]here is a soun d po lic y f or r equir ing 17 fo undatio na l e vid en ce that the f oot pr int m at ch es [ the ] defen da nt’ s sh oe s. ” 80 C al

. 18 Rp tr

. 184 , 190 ( 1969 ). Whil e the c ourt no te d th at suc h ali nk m ay

not al wa y s be 19 re qui re d w he n th er e is “ ind ep en de nt e vid en ce li nki ng [ the ] de fe ndant w iththe tr ac ks9

1

. . . wh e r e t h e f

a c tt h a t[ t h e ] d e f

e n d a n tmad e t h e t r a c k s c a n o n l y b e e s t ab l i s h e db y a 2 com parison of the tracks with [the] defendant’ s shoes . . . [ s]ufficient foundational 3 ev ide nc e shou ld b e re qui re d to sup port a log ic al inf

er en ce of id en tity

f ro m the 4 com m on dis tinctive features of the f ootp rint and t h e [defendant’ s] shoes.” Id

. 5 A lth oughthi s sp ec if

ic iss ue ha s not bee n ana ly ze d by a N ewMe xic o a ppe llate c ourt, 6 thi s r equir em en t ha s be enge ne ra lly ac know le dge d in our Su pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio ns 7 on th is is su e. Se e R onde ua , 1976-NMS C-044, ¶ 43 (stating that a w itness m ay testify 8 to sim ilarities betwee n tracks found and th e sh o es o r s h o e p rints of the defendant); 9 Martinez , 193 2- N MS C- 051, ¶ 9 ( sta tin g th at

“ a w itn es s who ha s m ea sur ed the tr ac ks 10 an d compa red his m ea sur em en t with the sho es of [the] accused m ay te sti fy to the 11 results and that a correspondence exists in size and shape” (e m phasis add ed) (internal 12 quot at ionm ar

ks and cit at ionom itt ed ))

. I n th is c as e, a sid e fr om the f ac t tha t sh oe 13 pr in ts we re f

ound ne ar D ef en da nt’ s r es ide nc e, the re w as no o the r te sti m ony or 14 ind ep en de nt ev ide nc e lin kin g the shoe pr int s f ound out sid e D ef

en da nt’ s ho m e w ith 15 D ef en da nt. T he re fo re , D ep uty D au ghe rty ’ s te sti m ony

f ai le d to provi de asuf

fi ci en t 16 fo un da ti on forhi s o pi ni on . 17 { 14} Insum , D ep uty D au ghe rty ’ s te sti m ony , w he n c onsi de re d a s aw hol e, a m ount s 18 to a cursory

opini on that th ree differe nt sho e prints found at th e s ce n e were 1 9 s ub s t an t i al l y l i k e s o m e u n kn o wn s h o e p ri n t s h e o b s er v ed o u t s i d e D ef en d an t ’s10

1 re sid en ce , w i th o u t

any s p e c i f i c at i o nr e g ar d ing the ir

sim ilari tie s, m

uc h le ss whic h sh oe 2 p r i n t s h e wa s a c t u a l l y c o mp a r i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y, h i s t e s t i mo n y fa i l e dt o l a y a 3 f o u n d a t i o n u n d e r

R u l e 1 1

- 7 0 1 a n d w a s i mp e rmi s s i b l e l a y wi t n e s s o p i n i o n t e s t i mo n y. 4 D ef en da ntD id N ot P ro pe rl y E nt er In to a C on di ti on al P le a 5 { 15} Beca

use we conclude that Deputy Da ugherty ’ s opin ion testim ony wa s 6 im pr ope r, w e al so ad dr es s D ef en da nt’ s ar gum en t tha t he pr ope rl y pr es er ve d th e iss ue 7 challenging the testim ony in his cond ition al no contest p l ea in the CDP case. 8 D ef en da nt ar gue s tha t if he ha d, in fa ct , pr oc ee de d to tr ia l onthi s c ha rg e, it is lik el y 9 that Deputy

Da ugherty ’ s opin ion regarding the shoe prints would have been adm itted 10 at thi s tri al

. Ther ef

or e, he c la im s th at

r ev er sa l onthi s po int

in the larc en y

c as e 11 req ui res a rev ers al of h is co nv ic ti on forCDP. W e d is ag ree. 12 { 16} “ [A ] vo l u n t ar y g u i l t y p l ea o rd i n ar i l y co n s t i tu t es a w ai v ero f t h e d ef en d an t ’s 13 right to appeal his [or her] convictio n on oth er than j urisdictio nal ground s.” State v. 14 H odge , 1994-NMS C- 0 8 7 , ¶ 14, 118 N. M. 410, 882 P. 2d 1. A conditi onal plea, 15 however, is a procedure that “ enable[s] a defe ndant to reser ve a significant pretrial 16 iss ue f

or app eal in ac as e in whic h c onvi ct ionse em s c er ta in unle ss the de fe ndant 17 prevails on the pretrial issue.” Sta te v. Ce lus nia k , 2004-NMC A- 070, ¶ 7, 135 N.M. 18 728, 93 P.3d 10 . Rul e 5 -3 04 (A)(2 ) NMRA g ov ern s co nd it io na l p le as . The Ru le st at es, 19 “ W ith the approv al of the court and the consent of the state, a defendant m ay enter a11

1 co ndi tio na l pl ea

of gui lty or no co nte st, re se rv ing in w ri tin g th e ri ght , on a ppe al f ro m 2 the j udgm ent, to re view of the adverse determ ination of any specified pre- trial 3 m otion .” Id

. T hus, a“ de fe ndant e nte rs a va lid co ndi tio na l pl ea by ( 1) pr es er

vin g th e 4 er ro r thr ougha pr etri al m oti on, ( 2) obt ai nin g c onse nt o f the pr ose cu tio n, a nd ( 3) 5 obtaini ng approv al of the court. ” Ce lus nia k , 20 04 -NMCA- 07 0, ¶ 7

. 6 { 17} Apa rt

f ro m the c onse nt r equir em en ts, the r ule e m bodi es tw o othe r pr inc ipl es : 7 pr es er va tio n a nd res er

va tio n. F ir st, the r

ule r equir es that the re be a n “ adve rs e 8 de te r mi n a t i on of a ny spe ci fie d p re-t ria l m ot io n.” Rul e 5 -3 04 (A)(2 ). Ther efo re, a 9 defendant m

ust have preserved

the iss ue f

or ap pe llate re vie w . Se co nd, the de fe ndant 1 0 m u s t s p e c i f y t h e s p e c i f

i c i s s u e o r i s s u e s t h a t h e o r she is rese rv ing f or appe llate 11 review . T hat is, t h e d ef en dant m ust “ express an intentio n to reserve a particular 12 pretrial issue for a

ppeal.” Sta te v . H

anda , 199 5- N MC A -0 42, ¶ 12, 120 N

. M. 38, 897 13 P.2 d 2 25 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 14 { 18} Inthi s c ase, Defend an t di d ne ith er . D ef en da nt d id n ot f

ile a ny m oti on 15 ch al le ngi ng D ep uty D au ghe rty ’ s te sti m ony in the CD P ca se . W ith out suc h an a dve rs e 16 de te rm ina tio n r

uli ng the te sti m ony

a dm iss ibl e, the re is no al le ge d er ro r on w hic h to 17 ba se ap pe llate re vie w . Furthe rm or e, D ef en da nt d id n ot reserve an iss ue f or appe llate 18 re vie w . D ef

en da nt d id not spe ci fy an iss ue w he n e nte ri ng h is c ondi tio na l pl ea , a nd, 19 in fa ct , de cl ine d to do so. Su ch fa ilure s ar e not inc onse que nti al

. W ith out pr es er vin g12

1 aniss ue f

or r ev ie w or

ind ic at ing w ha t i ssu e the de fe ndant i s res erv ing, ne ith er the 2 pr os ecu to r nor

the dis tr ic t c ourt c anpr ope rl y gr an t the ir

r es pe ct ive c onse nt o r 3 ap pr ov al of th e co nd it io na l p le a. Se e H odge , 1994 -N MS C- 087, ¶ 20 ( sta tin g th at both 4 the prosecutor and the court sho uld ensure that issues reser ved in cond ition al pleas 5 ar e ca se -d isp osi tiv e)

. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e tha t De fe ndant did not ent er a va lid 6 co n d i t i o n al p l ea re s er v i n g h i s ri g h t t o ap p ea l t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f D ep u t y Da u g h er t y’ s 7 te st im on y

in hi s C DP cas e. 8 CON CLU SION 9 { 19} Fo r the f

or eg oin g re as ons, w e re ve rs e D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ionf

or larc en y a nd 10 affi rm hi s p le a o f no co nt es t t o t he CDP ch arg e. 11 { 20} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

12 13 C Y N TH IAA . F R Y , Ju dg e

14 WE CO NCUR:

15 16 MIC HAE L E. VIGIL, Ch ief Judge

17 18 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e