Preview:

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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.

1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 4 v. 5 EDWARD SOTO, 6 Defendant-Appellant. Plaintiff-Appellee, NO. 30,959

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 8 Gary L. Clingman, District Judge 9 10 11 12 Gary K. King, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee 14 Jacqueline Cooper, Chief Public Defender 15 J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender 16 Santa Fe, NM 17 for Appellant 18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 CASTILLO, Chief Judge. 2 Police seized drug paraphernalia and weapons after searching a residence.

3 These items formed the basis for the instant criminal proceedings. Defendant moved 4 to suppress, challenging the validity of the search. The district court denied the 5 motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 6 BACKGROUND 7 On September 26, 2009, Defendant was staying in a residence leased by

8 Michelle Johnson and Robert DeLeon. Shortly after midnight Officer Blevins and 9 Sergeant Cunningham approached the residence and obtained the lessees' permission 10 to conduct a search. 11 For the purposes of the present appeal, only a portion of the residence is of

12 significance. The officers described the area in question as a large common room, into 13 which one stepped immediately upon entering the residence. This common room was 14 comprised of two adjacent areas, which might be loosely described as the northern and 15 southern living rooms. Defendant had been sleeping on a mattress on the floor in the 16 northern living room. The area had not been segregated in any way from the rest of 17 the common living space. A couch, desk, and computer were also located in the 18 immediate vicinity. Despite Defendant's presence, his consent to search the area was 19 not sought.

2

1

Ultimately, the search of the living room and adjacent closet yielded drug

2 paraphernalia and firearms. Defendant admitted that one or more of the items seized 3 were his. 4 Below, Defendant moved to suppress on grounds that the warrantless search of

5 the residence was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion. This appeal 6 followed. 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW 8 When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, "[w]e view the facts in the

9 manner most favorable to the prevailing party and defer to the district court's findings 10 of fact if substantial evidence exists to support those findings." State v. Urioste, 11 2002-NMSC-023,

Download CA30959.pdf

New Mexico Law