State v. Manning

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES TYRONE MANNING, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-37616

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

May 18, 2020

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY

James W. Counts, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Eran S. Sharon, Assistant Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1} Defendant James Tyrone Manning appeals from his convictions following a jury trial of trafficking methamphetamine (by distribution), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-20(A)(2)(c) (2006), and conspiracy to commit trafficking methamphetamine (by distribution), contrary to Section 30-31-20(A)(2)(c) and NMSA 1978, Section 30-28-2 (1979). Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions as well as the sentence enhancement for his drug trafficking conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm but remand to the district court to correct typographical errors in the judgment and sentence.

BACKGROUND

{2} Deputy Calib Bruce, an undercover narcotics agent with the Otero County Sheriff's Office, arranged a meeting with Defendant to buy methamphetamine from him. On December 9, 2015, Deputy Bruce met Defendant at an Alamogordo gas station to purchase methamphetamine. When Defendant arrived at the gas station, he got into Deputy Bruce's unmarked truck and handed him a plastic baggie with a white crystal-like substance. Deputy Bruce gave Defendant $100 in exchange for the drugs. After the exchange, Defendant got out of Deputy Bruce's truck, walked over to a black Dodge Charger, and got into the rear passenger seat. During the exchange, Agent Chad Webb, a member of Deputy Bruce's team, took photographs of Defendant and the vehicle he entered after he sold Deputy Bruce the methamphetamine.

{3} After the purchase, Deputy Bruce went back to the police station where he reviewed Agent Webb's photographs and identified Defendant. The substance that Defendant sold Deputy Bruce tested positive for methamphetamine and had an approximate weight of 1.26 grams.

{4} On December 16, 2015, Deputy Bruce sent a text message to Defendant to purchase more methamphetamine. Deputy Bruce and Defendant exchanged multiple text messages and at least one phone call to arrange the purchase. This time Defendant arranged for his "girl" to meet Deputy Bruce to sell him more methamphetamine. Deputy Bruce later identified Defendant's "girl" from previous narcotics investigations as Caresse Stanfill. When he arrived to meet Ms. Stanfill, Deputy Bruce observed the same Dodge Charger in which he had previously seen Defendant, parked at a gas pump. Ms. Stanfill got out of the Dodge Charger, got into Deputy Bruce's unmarked truck, and sold Deputy Bruce $50 worth of methamphetamine. The drugs Deputy Bruce purchased from Ms. Stanfill also tested positive for methamphetamine and had an approximate weight of 0.37 grams. Following the drug transaction with Ms. Stanfill, Defendant was arrested and charged with trafficking a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit trafficking a controlled substance.

{5} Defendant was convicted by a jury of trafficking methamphetamine and conspiracy. The State then filed a supplemental criminal information and brief in support seeking to enhance Defendant's sentence to a first degree felony for committing a second trafficking offense, pursuant to Section 30-31-20(B)(2). At sentencing, based on Defendant's previous conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute under NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-22(A)(2)(a) (1990, amended 2011), the district court determined that this was Defendant's second trafficking conviction and enhanced his sentence from a second degree felony to a first degree felony. Defendant was sentenced to nineteen years in prison.

DISCUSSION

I. Substantial Evidence Supports Defendant's Convictions

{6} Defendant argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the offenses charged. Specifically, with regard to the trafficking by distribution charge, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient because there was no physical evidence presented to tie Defendant to the transaction. With regard to the conspiracy charge, Defendant argues that because (1) Deputy Bruce did not observe any communication between Ms. Stanfill and himself; (2) Deputy Bruce did not observe Defendant at the second drug transaction; and (3) there was no physical evidence to tie him to the transaction, his conspiracy conviction should be reversed.

A. Standard of Review

{7} "The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction." State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 52, 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. ¶ 53 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). When reviewing for substantial evidence, appellate courts "view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict." Id. ¶ 52 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We also disregard all evidence and inferences that support a different result. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. "The question before the reviewing court is not whether [it] would have had a reasonable doubt about guilt but whether it would have been impermissibly unreasonable for a jury to have concluded otherwise." Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 52 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Lastly, we note that "[t]he jury instructions become the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured." State v. Holt, 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 20, 368 P.3d 409 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

B. Substantial Evidence Supported Defendant's Conviction for Trafficking Methamphetamine

{8} To establish Defendant's guilt of trafficking methamphetamine by distribution, the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (1) "[D]efendant transferred or caused the transfer of methamphetamine to another"; (2) "[D]efendant knew it was methamphetamine or believed it to be methamphetamine or believed it to be some other drug or other substance the possession of which is regulated or prohibited by law"; and (3) the events transpired in New Mexico on or about December 9, 2015. See UJI 14-3110 NMRA.{9} Deputy Bruce testified that he was working as an undercover narcotics agent when he arranged a meeting with Defendant at a gas station to purchase methamphetamine on December 9, 2015. When Defendant arrived at the gas station, he got into Deputy Bruce's unmarked truck and handed Deputy Bruce a plastic baggie with a white, crystal-like substance. Deputy Bruce paid Defendant $100 for the baggie. During this exchange, Deputy Bruce recorded the conversations with Defendant and the State admitted the audio recording into evidence at trial. Following the transaction, Deputy Bruce returned to the police station where he identified Defendant in a photograph lineup. Agent Webb testified that he worked on Deputy Bruce's team during the December 9 exchange with Defendant and took photographs of the vehicle and of Defendant. A forensic scientist, Cheryl Serena, analyzed the drugs and testified that the white crystal-like substance that Defendant sold Deputy Bruce tested positive for methamphetamine. Both the photographs and laboratory report were published to the jury. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that substantial evidence supported Defendant's conviction for trafficking methamphetamine.

C. Substantial Evidence Supported Defendant's Conviction of Conspiracy to Traffic Methamphetamine

{10} To establish that Defendant was guilty of conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine, the State had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that (1) "[D]efendant and another person by words or acts agreed together to commit trafficking a controlled substance by distribution"; (2) "[D]efendant and the other person intended to commit trafficking a controlled substance by distribution"; and (3) the events transpired in New Mexico on or about December 16, 2015. See UJI 14-2810 NMRA; State v. Hernandez, 1997-NMCA-006, ¶ 41, 122 N.M. 809, 932 P.2d 499 ("[T]he [s]tate ha[s] the burden to prove [the d]efendant agreed with someone to commit the underlying offense and intended to commit the underlying offense."). We note that conspiracy is rarely proven by means of direct evidence; thus, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction. See State v. Johnston, 1982-NMCA-083, ¶ 13, 98 N.M. 92, 645 P.2d 448 ("The gist of conspiracy is the agreement, and such agreements are rarely susceptible of direct proof. Consequently, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction."). Accordingly, we must determine "whether the circumstances, taken together, show that [the d]efendant and another party united to accomplish an illegal scheme." State v. Zamora, 2005-NMCA-039, ¶ 25, 137 N.M. 301, 110 P.3d 517.

{11} The jury was presented evidence of the following circumstances: Approximately a week after the first exchange, on December 16, 2015, Deputy Bruce sent a...