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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 33,879 4 DOMINIC PHILLIPS, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 William C. Birdsall, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Josephine H. Ford, Assist ant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Judge. 182 {1} Pursuant to a plea agreement reserving the right to appeal, Defendant challenges 1 the denial of his motion to suppress. Wepreviously issued a notice of proposed 2 summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the district court’s decision. 3 Defendant has filed a memorandum in oppos ition, which we have duly considered. 4 Because we remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s assertions of error, we affirm. 5 {2} We previously set forth the relevant background information and guiding 6 authorities at some length in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will 7 avoid undue repetition here and focus instead on the content of the memorandum in 8 opposition. 9 {3} Defendant continues to ch allenge the validity of the warrantless entry which 10 preceded his arrest. [MIO 1-9] As we previ ously observed, insofar as the owner/lessee 11 had common authority over the area, her cons ent supplied a valid basis for the police 12 entry. See State v. Duffy , 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 72, 126 N.M . 132, 967 P.2d 807 (“It is 13 constitutionally permissible for the police to search a person’s home if they have 14 received valid consent from a person who is in possession of or who has common 15 authority over the premises.”), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. 16 Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 37, 275 P.3d 110. 17 {4} Defendant does not dispute the sufficien cy of the evidence to establish the 18 owner/lessee’s common authority. Instead, he continues to rely on authority 193 addressing situations in whic h one resident consents to an entry but another objects. 1 [MIO 6-7] However, as we previously observed, this authority is inapposite insofar 2 as Defendant raised no objection to the police entry. [RP 130] 3 {5} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant suggests that he may have lacked 4 the opportunity to object and encourages the Court to presume or infer an objection 5 under the circumstances. [MIO 5-7] However, in light of the standard of review, we 6 are not at liberty to do so. See generally State v. Lopez , 2005-NMSC-018, ¶ 9, 138 7 N.M. 9, 116 P.3d 80 (“[W]e must draw all reasonable inferences in support of the 8 district court’s denial of [ad]efendant’s motion to suppress and defer to the district 9 court’s determination of the facts.”). 10 {6} Finally, we understand Defendant to suggest that the warrantless entry should 11 be deemed invalid under the greater protections afforded by the New Mexico 12 Constitution. [MIO 7-9] Although we acknow ledge the fact that the New Mexico 13 Constitution may provide greater protections than its federal counterpart, Defendant 14 fails to explain how this c ould be said to diminish th e ability of the owner/lessee to 15 consent to a warrantless entry based on her common authority over the area. [MIO 7- 16 9] The cases cited by Defendant have no bearing on this question. [MIO 7-9] We 17 therefore decline to consid er the argument further. See State v. Urioste , 2011-NMCA18 121, ¶ 29, 267 P.3d 820 (“[T]his Court’s policy is to re frain from reviewing unclear 194 or undeveloped arguments which require us to guess at what [a party’s] arguments 1 might be[.]” (internal quotati on marks and citation omitted)); see, e.g., State v. Randy 2 J. , 2011-NMCA-105, ¶¶ 27-30, 150 N.M. 683, 265 P.3d 734 (declining to consider 3 an undeveloped argument based on a general assertion that the New Mexico 4 Constitution affords greater protections). 5 {7} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the 6 notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm. 7 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 10

WE CONCUR: 11

_________________________________ 12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 13

_________________________________ 14 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 15