State v. Howl, 2016 NMCA 84

Background

On Feb. 3, 2012, Officer Alvarado stopped David Howl’s pickup after observing it cross the center line; Alvarado asked for license, registration, and insurance.
Alvarado had Howl exit the vehicle; he later asked Howl’s passenger to retrieve registration/insurance from the center console, and the passenger opened it, revealing a glass pipe consistent with methamphetamine use.
After seeing the pipe, Alvarado arrested Howl for possession of drug paraphernalia and, while handling Howl’s cigarettes, discovered a bag of crystallized methamphetamine on Howl’s person; lab testing confirmed methamphetamine.
At trial Howl was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, failure to maintain lane, and no proof of insurance; trial counsel did not move to suppress the pipe or drugs or object to their admission.
Howl testified, but the district court excluded his testimony about a post-arrest urinalysis he claimed was negative; counsel moved for directed verdicts instead of a suppression motion.
The Court of Appeals found trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress created a prima facie ineffective-assistance claim and remanded for an evidentiary hearing; the court reached alternative rulings on sufficiency and evidentiary issues in the event the ineffective-assistance claim fails.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Howl's Argument	Held
1) Ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress pipe and methamphetamine	Counsel’s failure did not warrant relief; asserts remedy should be via habeas if record insufficient	Trial counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress evidence obtained after a warrantless search; this prejudiced the defense	Court: Counsel’s failure to move to suppress was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; prima facie ineffective-assistance established — remand for evidentiary hearing (not habeas)
2) Sufficiency of evidence for possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia	Evidence (pipe in console; meth on Howl’s person) suffices for convictions	Argued State failed to prove constructive possession/knowledge	Court: Viewing evidence favorably to verdict, sufficient evidence supports convictions if suppressed evidence remains admitted
3) Exclusion of testimony about clean urinalysis (right to present defense)	Exclusion is permissible; proposed testimony would be hearsay and Howl failed to offer proper foundation/witness/documentation	Exclusion violated right to present defense and prevented introducing exculpatory evidence	Court: Upheld exclusion — testimony was properly excluded under hearsay rules and Howl did not offer a proper means to admit results
4) Alleged clerical sentencing error exposing Howl to greater time	Sentence as entered did not impose extra time; State defends sentencing order	Sentencing order allegedly made the 4-year habitual enhancement run consecutive to Count 2, increasing exposure beyond oral sentence	Court: No clerical error; sentencing order read consistently — total incarceration four years; resentencing denied

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rowell, 144 N.M. 371, 188 P.3d 95 (2008) (New Mexico rule: warrant required for automobile search absent recognized exceptions)
State v. Van Dang, 138 N.M. 408, 120 P.3d 830 (2005) (property owner generally has legitimate expectation of privacy)
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (automobile interior is protected by the Fourth Amendment)
State v. Reynolds, 119 N.M. 383, 890 P.2d 1315 (1995) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in license/registration when operating a vehicle)
United States v. Poe, 556 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2009) (private search can become governmental if government coerces or directs the private actor)
State v. Monteleone, 138 N.M. 544, 123 P.3d 777 (2005) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars admission of evidence derived from illegal searches)
State v. Mosley, 335 P.3d 244 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel analysis)
State v. Herrera, 131 N.M. 22, 33 P.3d 22 (2001) (prima facie standard for entitlement to evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claim)
State v. Dylan J., 145 N.M. 719, 204 P.3d 44 (2009) (de novo review of ineffective-assistance claims)