State v. Gonzalez, 36,247

Defendant Ray Jeff Gonzales was convicted in San Juan County for trafficking a controlled substance under NMSA 1978, § 30-31-20.
At trial, Agent Nickerson testified that he personally purchased methamphetamine from Gonzales (undercover buy).
The prosecution relied on the undercover purchase plus other corroborating evidence presented at trial.
Gonzales appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trafficking conviction.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm; Gonzales filed a memorandum in opposition but raised no new persuasive legal or factual points.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support trafficking conviction	Evidence (undercover officer’s purchase and corroborating facts) is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	All evidence was circumstantial; gaps exist concerning the CI, a man who approached the vehicle, and a circling vehicle, so evidence is insufficient	Affirmed — direct testimony of the undercover purchase plus corroborating evidence sufficed; defendant’s challenges did not overcome the showing of guilt

Rael v. State, 127 N.M. 347, 981 P.2d 280 (1999) (upholding trafficking convictions where undercover officer testified to purchasing narcotics)
State v. Chandler, 119 N.M. 727, 895 P.2d 249 (1995) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction when it permits reasonable inferences of guilt)
State v. Mondragon, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (1988) (party responding to a summary calendar notice must identify specific errors of law or fact)