State v. Ornelas, 35,777

Defendant Ricardo Ornelas was convicted by conditional plea of receiving stolen property following a warrantless search of his vehicle.
On appeal, Ornelas argued his consent to the vehicle search was coerced because three officers repeatedly requested permission and he only acquiesced after continued pressure.
The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed disposition proposing to summarily affirm the conviction.
Ornelas filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO) reiterating claims of coercion, badgering/harassment, and analogizing facts to State v. Pierce.
The appellate panel reviewed whether the trial court correctly applied the law to facts viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s decision.
The court concluded Ornelas failed to point out specific errors of fact or law in the proposed disposition and that the record supported the trial court’s finding of voluntary consent; the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of consent to search vehicle	Consent was voluntary; trial court’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Consent was coerced due to repeated requests, officer "badgering," and presence of three officers	Affirmed — court defers to trial court credibility findings and finds substantial evidence supports voluntariness
Burden in summary calendar response	Court need not change proposed disposition absent specific showing of errors	Appellant must point out specific errors in the notice of proposed disposition	Affirmed — appellant failed to identify specific factual or legal errors in the notice
Applicability of State v. Pierce	Court evaluated Pierce in calendar notice and found it distinguishable	Ornelas argued facts were analogous to Pierce, supporting suppression	Affirmed — court rejected the Pierce analogy after considering facts as viewed for prevailing party
Standard of review for trial-court factual findings	Defer to district court on credibility and conflicts in testimony	Requested re-weighing of evidence to show coercion	Affirmed — appellate court applies substantial-evidence review and will not reweigh evidence

State v. Pierce, 134 N.M. 388, 77 P.3d 292 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (discusses coercion/consent factors in vehicle-search contexts)
State v. Davis, 304 P.3d 10 (N.M. 2013) (articulates substantial-evidence standard and appellate review limits)
State v. Salas, 986 P.2d 482 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (deference to district court on witness credibility and testimony conflicts)
State v. Griffin, 866 P.2d 1156 (N.M. 1993) (similar deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Hennessy v. Duryea, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (party opposing proposed disposition must point out specific errors in fact or law)
State v. Snell, 166 P.3d 1106 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (review standard: correct application of law to facts viewed in light most favorable to prevailing party)