State v. Wiltse, 35,457

Background

Defendant Robert Wiltse convicted of receiving stolen property valued over $20,000 after officers executed search warrants on his house and a detached Conex container.
Owners of stolen items testified as to value; one owner valued a taxidermied deer head at $12,000.
A search-warrant affidavit described seeing "several large televisions, jewelry, and other items matching the description of items stolen in burglaries" and stated the affiant recognized items matching recently stolen property.
Neighbors reported seeing Wiltse move items into a Conex container on a neighboring property that belonged to Wiltse.
Wiltse sought to amend his docketing statement to raise five issues on appeal (value sufficiency, sufficiency of affidavit for house search, probable cause for Conex search, denial of continuance/ineffective assistance, and due-process claim regarding choice to self-represent or keep counsel); the Court denied the motion and affirmed conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence as to $20,000 valuation	Owner testimony as to value is admissible and supports jury verdict	Deer head could not reasonably be worth $12,000; non-record internet price evidence undermines value	Affirmed: Court will not consider extra-record evidence; owner testimony sufficed for jury determination
Sufficiency of affidavit for house search	Affidavit described items matching recently stolen property and affiant personally recognized items	Description was too general ("televisions, jewelry, other items") to show probable cause	Affirmed: Affiant's recognition of items provided probable cause; plain-view observations supported seizure
Probable cause to search Conex container	Items seen in house and neighbor's report of Wiltse moving items into Conex supported reasonable belief stolen items would be there	Neighbor's report described conduct consistent with innocent storage, not necessarily stolen property	Affirmed: Given house seizures and neighbor tip, probable cause supported warrant for Conex
Denial of continuance / ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial court acted within discretion; defendant failed to show prejudice from short preparation time	Trial counsel had been effectively fired earlier and had only three days to prepare, denying adequate representation	Affirmed: Denial of continuance not shown to be abusive; ineffective-assistance claim not proven on record—factual development for post-conviction proceedings needed
Due process re: choice to self-represent vs. counsel with limited prep	Court properly informed defendant of options; defendant must show specific prejudice	Court coerced choice by offering only self-representation or counsel with inadequate prep time, violating due process	Affirmed: No specific showing that counsel's limited prep impaired meaningful defense; claim not viable on record

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sommer, 118 N.M. 58, 878 P.2d 1007 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (motion to amend docketing statement requires viable issues)
In re Aaron L., 128 N.M. 641, 996 P.2d 431 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (appellate courts do not consider matters outside the record)
State v. Jim, 332 P.3d 870 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (ineffective-assistance claims depending on facts outside the record are suited for habeas/post-conviction proceedings)
State v. Sanchez, 355 P.3d 795 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing plain-view exception and probable cause)
State v. Evans, 210 P.3d 216 (N.M. 2009) (probable cause to search a location requires reasonable grounds to believe evidence will be found there)
State v. Salazar, 152 P.3d 135 (N.M. 2007) (trial-court denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion; prejudice required for reversal)
State v. Gallegos, 206 P.3d 993 (N.M. 2009) (ineffective-assistance standard requires showing outcome would likely differ absent deficient performance)
State v. Guerra, 284 P.3d 1076 (N.M. 2012) (due-process claims require demonstration of harm from procedural deficiencies)
In re Ernesto M., Jr., 915 P.2d 318 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice)