State v. Bello, 34,165

On Nov. 11, 2009, an APD undercover officer (Detective Jaramillo) arranged buys in a known narcotics area; Ralph Franco acted as an intermediary and identified Armis Bello as the seller.
Detective Jaramillo purchased a small rock of crack cocaine via Franco for $20; dissatisfied, he then directly bought a second rock from Bello for $10 (receiving $10 change).
Both purchased items were submitted to APD lab and tested positive for cocaine.
Bello was indicted on multiple counts and convicted of trafficking cocaine by distribution (Section 30-31-20(A)(2)) and trafficking by possession with intent to distribute (Section 30-31-20(A)(3)).
On appeal Bello argued (1) double jeopardy as to the two trafficking convictions, (2) insufficient evidence to prove possession, and (3) ineffective assistance for failure to call two defense witnesses; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy: two trafficking convictions under § 30-31-20	State: statute authorizes separate punishment for each separate transfer/delivery of a controlled substance	Bello: convictions for distribution and possession-with-intent constitute the same offense and violate double jeopardy	Affirmed; unit-of-prosecution analysis applies and legislature defined unit as one transfer; two distinct transfers occurred, so no double jeopardy
Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession/intent	State: undercover testimony, two exchanges, and lab results suffice to show possession and intent to transfer	Bello: only Detective Jaramillo testified; no direct evidence he possessed the drugs	Affirmed; substantial evidence and reasonable inferences from testimony support both convictions
Ineffective assistance for not calling Franco and Aguilar	State: counsel made tactical decisions; record shows no prima facie showing of prejudice	Bello: counsel’s failure to call key witnesses deprived him of effective assistance	Affirmed; defendant failed to make prima facie showing on the record (but may pursue habeas with additional evidence)

State v. Swick, 279 P.3d 747 (N.M. 2012) (applies unit‑of‑prosecution analysis for double jeopardy and guides review)
State v. Gallegos, 254 P.3d 655 (N.M. 2011) (framework for determining distinctness of acts when statute does not define unit of prosecution)
State v. Borja‑Guzman, 912 P.2d 277 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (legislative intent permits separate prosecutions for separate transfers/deliveries)
Swafford v. State, 810 P.2d 1223 (N.M. 1991) (test whether legislature intended punishment for whole course of conduct or discrete acts)
State v. Torrez, 305 P.3d 944 (N.M. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)