State v. Gonzales, 33,678

Background

Probation officers (with state police present) searched Adam Gonzales’s residence March 1, 2013 for a probation violation; they seized 19 Suboxone strips (some packaged inside cut‑off latex glove fingers), rolling papers, small baggies, a box of latex gloves, six cell phones, ~ $1,300 cash, police scanners, and an EBT card not belonging to Gonzales.
The seized cell phones were inspected at the station; officers photographed text messages they believed showed Gonzales attempting to obtain or provide Suboxone (two messages were admitted at trial).
Gonzales was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (Suboxone) and possession of drug paraphernalia; he moved in limine to exclude the text messages on evidentiary and constitutional grounds, but did not present a factual basis or timely suppression motion.
At trial the court admitted two text messages and qualified Lieutenant Martinez as an expert in narcotics investigations; Martinez also summarized recorded inmate phone calls for the jury.
The jury convicted Gonzales on both counts; he appealed raising seven issues, notably suppression of phone evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, admissibility/propensity, expert testimony, sufficiency for intent to distribute, double jeopardy, and judge recusal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gonzales)	Held
Suppression of cell‑phone text messages	Search was performed by probation officers with reasonable cause; defendant failed to particularize suppression grounds or preserve evidentiary hearing	Search was warrantless and illegal; texts are fruit of an unlawful search and should have been suppressed	Denial affirmed: defendant never set forth a factual/legal basis for suppression or timely sought an evidentiary hearing, so court did not err in denying motion
Ineffective assistance for failing to renew suppression motion	State: record does not show what additional facts would have justified suppression; no record citations	Counsel should have re‑raised suppression once trial testimony developed facts supporting illegality of the phone search	Affirmed: defendant failed to make prima facie showing on direct appeal; may pursue habeas if facts outside record support claim
Admissibility / character evidence (text messages)	Texts were relevant to intent element and therefore admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice	Texts showed only personal use or attempts to obtain Suboxone and were improper character evidence under Rule 11‑404(B)	Affirmed: texts were relevant to intent to distribute and not unduly prejudicial under Rule 11‑403
Sufficiency of evidence for intent to distribute	Packaging, multiple phones, large cash, EBT card, police scanner, and packaging materials supported inference of intent to distribute	Quantity of Suboxone consistent with personal use; no direct proof of distribution intent	Affirmed: circumstantial evidence permitted jury to infer intent to distribute
Qualification and testimony of narcotics expert (Lt. Martinez)	Martinez was qualified by training and experience; his summaries aided jury contextually	Martinez’s interpretive summaries invaded jury function and his qualification/credibility were challenged	No reversible error: court did not abuse discretion in qualification; if any admission erred it was harmless given strong physical evidence; defendant did not show reasonable probability of prejudice
Double jeopardy (two convictions)	The offenses have distinct elements and the jury could infer independent factual bases (drugs/circumstantial intent vs. paraphernalia used to package)	Convictions punished same conduct (same packaging materials) in two statutes	Affirmed: conduct not unitary—the drug possession/intent charge relied on drugs and circumstantial intent evidence, paraphernalia charge relied on packaging items—no double jeopardy violation
Judicial recusal	State: record shows no objective basis to question judge’s impartiality; comments at sentencing not proof of personal bias	Judge had prior involvement (drug court member) and commented about Gonzales’s seriousness—should have recused	Affirmed: no record support for personal bias; statements did not demonstrate disqualifying prejudice and consecutive sentences do not establish bias

Key Cases Cited

State v. Paananen, 357 P.3d 958 (N.M. 2015) (mixed question standard of review for suppression)
State v. Williams, 255 P.3d 307 (N.M. 2011) (Fourth Amendment preference for warrants; reasonableness balancing)
State v. Williamson, 212 P.3d 376 (N.M. 2009) (warrant preference and probation‑search principles)
State v. Bolin, 238 P.3d 363 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (probation searches without warrant permissible with reasonable cause)
State v. Bejar, 679 P.2d 1288 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984) (intent to distribute may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Tollardo, 275 P.3d 110 (N.M. 2012) (harmless‑error standard for improperly admitted evidence)