This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and tampering with evidence. Police surveillance of the Defendant's residence, based on complaints of narcotics trafficking, led to a search warrant. Methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found in the Defendant's bedroom. At the hospital, the Defendant produced additional methamphetamine hidden in her clothing (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: The Defendant was convicted after a bench trial of possession of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and tampering with evidence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) her convictions for possession and possession with intent to distribute violated double jeopardy protections; (2) the evidence of possession was insufficient due to cross-contamination at the State's laboratory; (3) the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause, requiring suppression of the evidence; and (4) her right to a speedy trial was violated (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's arguments regarding the search warrant, sufficiency of evidence, and speedy trial were not preserved for appellate review. The State also argued that the Defendant's conduct was not unitary, and the convictions for possession and possession with intent to distribute were distinct (paras 7, 15).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute violate double jeopardy protections?
- Was the evidence of possession of methamphetamine insufficient due to alleged cross-contamination?
- Was the search warrant affidavit invalid for lack of probable cause?
- Was the Defendant's right to a speedy trial violated?
Disposition
- The conviction for possession of methamphetamine was vacated due to a double jeopardy violation (para 2).
- The convictions for possession with intent to distribute and tampering with evidence were affirmed (para 2).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Sutin CJ. and Bustamante J. concurring):
Double Jeopardy: The Court held that the Defendant's convictions for possession and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine violated double jeopardy protections. The conduct was deemed unitary, as the methamphetamine found at the residence and on the Defendant at the hospital was part of the same possession. The Court applied the Swafford test and determined that possession is a lesser-included offense of possession with intent to distribute, and the Legislature did not intend separate punishments for these offenses (paras 11-20).
Search Warrant: The Defendant's argument regarding the invalidity of the search warrant was not preserved for appellate review. The Court found that the Defendant failed to properly raise the issue before the trial court, depriving the State of the opportunity to address it (paras 7-10).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court rejected the Defendant's claim of insufficient evidence due to cross-contamination. Despite issues at the State's laboratory, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, as all tests confirmed the presence of methamphetamine, and the Defendant failed to provide persuasive authority to support her argument (paras 21-23).
Speedy Trial: The Defendant's argument regarding a violation of her right to a speedy trial was not preserved. Although the Defendant filed motions demanding a speedy trial, the trial court did not rule on the issue, and the Defendant failed to invoke a ruling (paras 24-25).
The Court vacated the conviction for possession of methamphetamine and affirmed the remaining convictions (para 26).