State v. Holguin, A-1-CA-36218

Defendant Robert Holguin was convicted of trafficking methamphetamine by possession with intent to distribute and of possession of drug paraphernalia; he appealed.
Police searched a vehicle containing Defendant and two passengers and found methamphetamine in a jacket in the vehicle and on the front floorboard near Defendant.
Officers found empty plastic baggies in Defendant’s front pants pocket that matched designs of baggies containing methamphetamine; a digital scale and additional baggies were on the front floorboard near Defendant.
Multiple glass pipes with residue were found in the jacket and under Defendant’s seat.
Defendant testified the drugs and paraphernalia belonged to his passengers and that the empty baggies were for carrying screws for work.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and moved to amend the docketing statement to challenge the paraphernalia conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking (constructive possession)	State: circumstantial evidence (matching baggies on person, drugs in jacket, drugs on floorboard, scale, pipes) shows knowledge and control	Holguin: car not his; other passengers present; drugs belonged to them; no exclusive possession	Affirmed—circumstantial evidence supported inference of knowledge and control; resolve disputed facts for State and disregard contrary testimony
Sufficiency of evidence for possession of paraphernalia (actual possession)	State: empty baggies found in Defendant’s front pocket, Defendant admitted they were his; proximity of similar packaged meth supports intended use	Holguin: claimed baggies were for screws; argued lack of intent to use for drug packaging	Denied motion to amend; evidence sufficient for actual possession and for reasonable inference of intent to use for drug packaging

State v. Maes, 469 P.2d 529 (N.M. 1970) (possession requires knowledge and either physical or constructive possession)
State v. Bowers, 529 P.2d 300 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974) (constructive possession requires knowledge and control; nonexclusive possession needs other incriminating circumstances)
State v. Morales, 45 P.3d 406 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (court must articulate reasonable analysis for inferring knowledge and control from circumstantial evidence)
State v. Tollardo, 275 P.3d 110 (N.M. 2012) (overruling on other grounds noted)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (in sufficiency review, resolve disputed facts for the State and disregard contrary evidence)
State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (court may deny motions to amend that raise nonviable issues)
State v. Durant, 7 P.3d 495 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (intent often proven by circumstantial evidence)