State v. Silvas, 2013 NMCA 093

In March 2008, a narcotics task force surveilled suspected drug activity at the American Motor Inn in Lordsburg, NM.
Patricia Ortega, a passenger in a white car, was stopped after the car exited the hotel parking lot on orders to stop vehicles linked to the drug operation.
Ortega returned to a Budget Motel and emerged with 1.7 grams of methamphetamine, stating she had bought it earlier from Defendant in his hotel room.
Law enforcement sought and obtained a search warrant for Ortega’s motel room; before issuance, officers forcibly entered Defendant’s hotel room when he was absent but found no evidence.
Defendant was arrested three days later and charged with trafficking and conspiracy related to the March 14 sale to Ortega.
After a two-day trial, Defendant was convicted of trafficking and conspiracy; he appeals challenging suppression, a new-trial motion, and the conspiracy conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge the stop	State contends Zamora lacks standing to challenge the stop of Ortega’s car.	Zamora has standing due to nexus between the stop and his alleged involvement.	Zamora lacked standing; the stop challenged was not his, and the evidence from the stop was not suppressible.
Warrantless hotel-room search	State may introduce evidence regardless of the warrantless entry’s illegality.	Hotel-room entry was egregious and merits suppression of all related evidence.	No evidence was seized during the hotel-room entry; no prejudice; suppression not required.
Failure to disclose recording and new trial	State disclosure of recording later would not affect trial fairness.	Late disclosure prejudiced defense and warranted a new trial.	No prejudice shown; denial of the new-trial motion upheld.
Wharton’s Rule and conspiracy conviction	Conspiracy conviction separate from trafficking should stand under Wharton’s Rule.	Wharton’s Rule bars conspiracy when substantive offense inherently requires the same two participants.	Fundamental error; conspiracy conviction reversed and dismissed; charges merged with trafficking.

State v. Ochoa, 146 N.M. 32 (2009-NMCA-002) (defines pretextual stop under NM law)
State v. Van Dang, 138 N.M. 408 (2005-NMSC-033) (standing; reviewing standard on suppression rulings)
State v. Soto, 131 N.M. 299 (2001-NMCA-098) (deterrent value of evidence suppression when link is attenuated)
State v. Chapman, 127 N.M. 721 (1999-NMCA-106) (passenger cannot vicariously assert driver’s Fourth Amendment rights)
State v. Carr, 626 P.2d 292 (1981-Ct. App.) (Wharton’s Rule and conspiracy merger where not all participants are bound by the same agreement)
State v. Smith, 102 N.M. 512 (1995-Ct. App.) (Wharton’s Rule applied to conspiracy versus substantive offense)
State v. Cunningham, 128 N.M. 711 (2000-NMSC-009) (fundamental error standard for unpreserved issues)
Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (1975) (Wharton’s Rule as a matter of legislative intent, not double jeopardy)
State v. Chouinard, 96 N.M. 658 (1981) (three-part test for loss of evidence under Chouinard)