State v. Duran
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. No. A-1-CA-36693 5 ALEX DURAN, 6 Defendant-Appellant 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 8 Angie K. Schneider, Judge 9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Law Offices of Adrianne R. Turner 13 Adrianne R. Turner 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Judge. 18 {1} Defendant Alex Duran appeals from the district court’s judgment and partially 19 suspended sentence, which reflects his conviction of one count of trafficking a 1 controlled substance (methamphetamine) (by distribution). [RP 159] We previously 2 entered a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has 3 filed a memorandum in opposition to our notice. We are unpersuaded and therefore 4 affirm. 5 {2} On appeal, Defendant raised a single issue, challenging the sufficiency of the 6 evidence to support his conviction. [DS 4] Our notice set forth the relevant facts and 7 the law that we believed controlled. We proposed to hold that the following evidence 8 supported Defendant’s conviction: (1) Otero County Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Mirabal’s 9 testimony that he arranged, through a confidential informant, to make a purchase from 10 Defendant, (2) Deputy Mirabal’s testimony that he did, in fact, purchase 11 approximately eighty-dollars worth of methamphetamine from Defendant, and (3) the 12 stipulation between the State and Defendant that the substance was .09 grams of 13 methamphetamine. See, e.g., State v. Rael, 1999-NMCA-068, ¶ 27, 127 N.M. 347, 981 14 P.2d 280 (concluding that officer testimony that he purchased narcotics from the 15 defendant constituted sufficient evidence to support a conviction for trafficking a 16 controlled substance). 17 {3} In response, Defendant continues to argue that there was insufficient evidence 18 because of a lack of supporting evidence to corroborate Deputy Mirabal’s testimony. 19 [MIO 3-4] We disagree. See generally State v. Soliz, 1969-NMCA-043, ¶8, 80 N.M. 2 1 297, 454 P.2d 779 (“As a general rule, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient 2 evidence for a conviction.). This is simply an argument directed at the credibility of 3 the officer’s testimony. However, as we pointed out in the calendar notice, the fact4 finder is the judge of credibility, and this Court will not reweigh evidence. See State 5 v. Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 5, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057 (“New Mexico 6 appellate courts will not invade the jury’s province as fact-finder by second-guessing 7 the jury’s decision concerning the credibility of witnesses, reweighing the evidence, 8 or substituting its judgment for that of the jury.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, 9 and citation omitted)). 10 {4} In sum, Defendant’s MIO does not supply any new legal or factual argument 11 that persuades us that our analysis or proposed disposition was incorrect. See State v. 12 Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] 13 party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically 14 point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not 15 fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. 16 Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 17 in our notice of proposed summary disposition and in this opinion, we affirm. 18 19 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED. _________________________________ 3 1 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3 ____________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 5 ____________________________ 6 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
