1
2
3
4
5
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico 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Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.
6
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
8
Plaintiff-Appellee,
9 v.
NO. 31,288
10 CARMEN DIAZ,
11
Defendant-Appellant.
12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY
13 William A. Sanchez, District Judge
14 Gary K. King, Attorney General
15 Santa Fe, NM
16 for Appellee
17 Deschamps & Kortemeier Law Offices, P.C.
18 Lauren Reed
19 Socorro, NM
20 for Appellant
21
22 VANZI, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
1
Defendant appeals from her “order of probation” based on her underlying
2 conditional
no-contest
plea
for
possession
of
a
controlled
substance
3 (methamphetamine). Our second notice proposed to affirm, and Defendant filed a
4 timely memorandum in opposition.
We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s
5 arguments and therefore affirm.
6
Defendant continues to argue that the district court erred in denying her motion
7 to suppress based on her argument that Deputy Martinez’ warrantless search of her
8 purse was unlawful. [MIO 3; RP 24, 45, 56] As provided in our second notice,
9 Deputy Martinez stopped a vehicle occupied by Defendant and Donnie Hobbs while
10 in the course investigating an armed robbery in which Hobbs was a suspect. [DS 1-2]
11 During the course of the stop, in which both Defendant and Hobbs were questioned
12 outside of the vehicle, Defendant returned to the vehicle to retrieve her purse. [DS 2;
13 RP 44] When Deputy Martinez tried to grab her purse, Defendant grabbed the purse
14 away. [DS 2] Given Hobbs’ status as an armed robbery suspect, Defendant’s status
15 as Hobbs’ girlfriend, and Defendant’s aggressive behavior with regard to the purse,
16 Deputy Martinez handcuffed Defendant and searched her purse for a weapon. As
17 provided in our second notice, an investigation for armed robbery may serve as
18 justification for a weapons search. See State v. Vandenberg, 2003-NMSC-030, ¶ 22,
19 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19. Moreover, the officer was justified in handcuffing
2
1 Defendant [MIO 4] during the search to ensure his safety. See State v. Gutierrez,
2 2004-NMCA-081, ¶ 11, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 (recognizing that a search for officer
3 safety may be justified even when the defendant is handcuffed).
4
For reasons set forth herein and in our second notice, we affirm.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
__________________________________
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
8 WE CONCUR:
9 _________________________________
10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
11 _________________________________
12 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
3
