Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses - cited by 5,984 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,900 documents
Decision Content
STATE V. SCHELLER
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KENNETH SCHELLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 35,865
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
May 16, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY, Gary L.
Clingman, District Judge
COUNSEL
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
JUDGES
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge. WE CONCUR: LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HANISEE Judge.
{1} Defendant appeals from his convictions for trafficking a controlled substance in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-20 (2006); possession of a controlled substance in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23(A) (2011); and use or possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-25.1(A) (2001), following a conditional plea. This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to conclude that the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. Specifically, we proposed to hold that, because Officer Berdoza appeared to have relied solely on Defendant’s nervousness to justify his expansion of the scope of the stop, that the expansion was constitutionally impermissible. The State has filed a response concurring with this Court’s proposed summary reversal and informing this Court that it will not be filing a memorandum in opposition. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we reverse Defendant’s convictions.
{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
WE CONCUR:
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge