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, a civilian, was arrested in July 1994 for allegedly selling six rocks of crack cocaine to an undercover informant, a member of the United States Air Force, during a controlled transaction. The investigation was a joint effort between the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and the Metro Drug Task Force of the Clovis Police Department, targeting suspected cocaine trafficking at a known drug house in Clovis, New Mexico (paras 2-8).
Procedural History
- District Court of Curry County: The Defendant was convicted of one count of trafficking in cocaine.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a motion to suppress evidence based on an alleged violation of the Federal Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) and for not objecting to testimony regarding an allegedly impermissibly suggestive photo array. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction (paras 1, 11, 23, 28).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction (paras 1, 22, 30).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to pursue a motion to suppress evidence based on an alleged violation of the Federal Posse Comitatus Act?
- Was the photo identification of the Defendant impermissibly suggestive?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking in cocaine?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction for trafficking in cocaine (para 31).
Reasons
Per Armijo J. (Donnelly and Flores JJ. concurring):
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court held that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial counsel's decision to abandon the motion to suppress evidence based on the PCA was deemed reasonable, as the facts and law did not support a PCA violation. The Court noted that the OSI's involvement in the investigation was limited and did not constitute direct or pervasive military enforcement of civilian laws, which would be required to establish a PCA violation. Additionally, the exclusionary rule would not apply even if a PCA violation were found (paras 11-22).
Photo Identification: The Court found that the photo array used to identify the Defendant was not impermissibly suggestive. The undercover informant had multiple prior encounters with the Defendant, and the identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances (paras 24-26).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of the undercover informant and police officers, was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction. The jury was entitled to reject the Defendant's testimony denying the drug sale (paras 28-30).
The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no errors in the proceedings (para 31).