State v. Fuentes, 35,945

Defendant Daniel Fuentes was convicted by a jury of trafficking by distribution and conspiracy to commit trafficking in Chaves County, New Mexico.
This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition to affirm; Fuentes filed a memorandum in opposition which the Court considered.
Fuentes argued insufficiency of the evidence, asserting lack of direct evidence that he knowingly distributed drugs or conspired to do so.
Fuentes also argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming trial counsel unreasonably stipulated to admission of drug test results instead of calling the analyst to testify, thereby removing identification of the substance from the jury.
The Court treated circumstantial evidence as substantial and found Fuentes did not identify errors in the proposed disposition or show counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable or prejudicial on the record.
The Court affirmed the convictions and noted ineffective-assistance claims are generally better raised in habeas proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support trafficking and conspiracy convictions	State argued circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove knowing distribution and conspiracy	Fuentes argued no direct evidence showed he knowingly distributed or conspired; convictions therefore unsupported	Court held circumstantial evidence can be substantial and Fuentes failed to point out errors; convictions supported
Ineffective assistance for stipulating to drug-test results	State implicitly defended counsel’s strategic choice and adequacy on the record	Fuentes argued stipulation was unreasonable, removed substance ID from jury, and undermined outcome	Court held Fuentes did not show counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable or prejudicial; claim not proven on direct appeal

State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (2015) (circumstantial evidence can be substantial evidence)
Lytle v. Jordan, 22 P.3d 666 (2001) (court will not second-guess trial strategy and tactics)
State v. Aker, 113 P.3d 384 (2005) (requirements to establish ineffective assistance on appeal)
Duncan v. Kerby, 851 P.2d 466 (1993) (preference to adjudicate ineffective-assistance claims in habeas proceedings)
State v. Mondragon, 759 P.2d 1003 (1988) (responding to summary calendar requires pointing out specific errors)