State v. Romero, 35,463

Defendant appeals convictions for possession of methamphetamine, distribution (trafficking) of methamphetamine, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, arising from two consolidated but separately judgmented dockets: D-1010-CR-14-00035 (RP 35) and D-1010-CR-14-00036 (RP 36).
The State stopped Defendant for a traffic violation, found a glass pipe with methamphetamine, and three days later methamphetamine was found hidden in her vagina during a jail search; additional methamphetamine was found in a cell shared with Jodi Romero, who testified the meth was hers and given by Defendant.
Defendant challenges the State’s failure to preserve a jail day-room videotape, arguing it could have shown distribution; but the charges did not involve day-room conduct, and the video was not material.
The evidence showed Defendant possessed methamphetamine and paraphernalia on arrest, and the later jail search revealed meth in her vagina; Romero’s testimony supported trafficking and tampering allegations.
Defendant raised an ineffective assistance claim, arguing counsel should have contested possession and sought a lesser-included instruction; the court notes such claims are typically pursued in habeas corpus and not decided on direct appeal.
The court affirmatively concludes the convictions are supported and the record shows no reversible error at issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether preservation of the day-room videotape was material error	State	Defendant claims failure to preserve could affect defense	No material error; not prejudicial
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support possession and paraphernalia convictions	State	Defense lacked credibility/defense strategy	Sufficient evidence supports possession and paraphernalia convictions
Whether the evidence supported trafficking and tampering convictions	State	Romero’s testimony undermines credibility	Evidence sufficient to support trafficking and tampering convictions
Whether trial counsel was ineffective	State (Defendant claims incompetence)	Counsel should have raised defense based on possession and lesser-included instruction	Prima facie showing not made on direct appeal; claims are best pursued in habeas proceedings

State v. Chouinard, 96 N.M. 658 (NMSC 1981) (duty to preserve; materiality requires prejudice)
State v. Martin, 101 N.M. 595 (NMSC 1984) (materiality; mere possibility of undisclosed info is not material)
State v. Salas, 127 N.M. 686 (NMCA 1999) (credibility determined by fact-finder; weight issues)
State v. Crain, 124 N.M. 84 (NMCA 1997) (trial strategy and defense presentation fall within tactics)
State v. Cordova, 331 P.3d 980 (NMCA 2014) (ineffective assistance claims generally handled in habeas corpus)
State v. Richardson, 114 N.M. 725 (NMCA 1992) (prima facie showing required for ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762 (NMSC 1994) (two-step sufficiency review)