State v. Gonzalez, 35,580

Defendant Rodney Gonzalez was convicted of possession of heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, and tampering with evidence; he appealed.
Officers detained Gonzalez at a convenience store and had him handcuffed when a woman approached identified as his sister.
Observers saw Gonzalez reach into his pocket and transfer an item to the woman during a hug; officers recovered a baggie from her containing heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
Defendant moved to amend the docketing statement on appeal to add a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge regarding the marijuana conviction.
The Court considered whether the sufficiency challenge could be added and whether the evidence supported convictions for possession of the three drugs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion to amend the docketing statement to add a marijuana sufficiency claim should be allowed	State did not oppose; the amendment simply adds an issue that mirrors other sufficiency claims	Gonzalez sought to add the marijuana sufficiency issue as timely and material	Motion granted; court incorporated its calendar notice and addressed the marijuana claim because facts duplicated other claims
Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions for possession of heroin and methamphetamine	Officers observed transfer and recovered a baggie with the drugs; jury could find actual possession beyond a reasonable doubt	Gonzalez argued insufficient evidence, particularly as to constructive possession	Convictions affirmed: viewed in the light most favorable to verdict, evidence supported a rational jury's finding of actual possession
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for possession of marijuana	Same as above: baggie contained marijuana along with other drugs	Gonzalez argued insufficient evidence to prove possession of marijuana separately	Affirmed: marijuana was found in the same baggie and the court applied the same sufficiency analysis; actual possession instruction supported conviction

State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (N.M. 1994) (standard for sufficiency review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Rael, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (standards for amending docketing statements on summary calendar)
State v. Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (court may deny amendment raising nonviable issues)
State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (overruling on other grounds referenced in Moore)