This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A deputy from the Roosevelt County Sheriff's Office obtained a search warrant for the Defendant's residence to search for a stolen fish tank and stand. During the search, law enforcement found an AK-47 rifle and a large bag containing methamphetamine in the Defendant's brother's bedroom. A second search warrant was obtained, leading to the discovery of methamphetamine and cash in the Defendant's bedroom, along with other items indicative of drug trafficking (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court: The Defendant was convicted of trafficking a controlled substance by possession with intent to distribute (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to object to certain evidence, file a motion to suppress evidence from the first search warrant, and request a jury instruction for a lesser included offense of possession (paras 1, 6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to object to the admission of certain evidence?
- Was the Defendant prejudiced by his counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the first search warrant?
- Did the failure to request a jury instruction for the lesser included offense of possession constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 1).
Reasons
Per Attrep, Chief Judge (Bogardus and Baca JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. Regarding the admission of Exhibit 2D, the Court concluded that even if counsel's performance was deficient, the Defendant was not prejudiced as the conviction was supported by other evidence (paras 7-9). On the issue of the suppression motion, the Court noted that the Defendant did not demonstrate how the failure to file such a motion prejudiced him, as the only items seized during the first search were not used against him in the trial (paras 10-13). Lastly, the decision not to request a lesser included offense instruction was deemed a matter of trial strategy, and the Defendant did not overcome the presumption that this was a sound strategy (paras 14-16). The Court emphasized that the Defendant could pursue his claims in a post-conviction proceeding (para 17).