State v. Wing, 505 P.3d 905

Around 1:15 a.m., Officer Burns observed at least two people appearing to dump trash from a truck in an empty lot known for illegal dumping.
The officer drove toward the truck; one to two minutes later he encountered Defendant Wing walking a bicycle about 100 yards from the lot; Wing admitted to dumping trash when asked.
After obtaining Wing’s identifying information, the officer discovered an outstanding warrant, arrested him, and a search before booking revealed methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
Wing moved to suppress the evidence and a statement, arguing he was seized without reasonable suspicion; the district court denied suppression alternatively finding the initial encounter consensual or, if a seizure, supported by reasonable suspicion.
Wing entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling; at sentencing the court did not invite Wing to allocute and imposed sentence within statutory limits.
The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of suppression (reasonable suspicion) but reversed and remanded for resentencing because Wing’s right of allocution was not honored and that error is jurisdictional.

Issue	State's Argument	Wing's Argument	Held
Whether the initial encounter/stop was supported by reasonable suspicion to detain Wing for the nearby illegal dumping	Officer had reasonable suspicion based on (1) direct observation of illegal dumping, (2) short temporal and physical proximity (~1–2 minutes and ~100 yards), (3) the lot’s reputation for dumping, (4) Wing being the only person in the area at an unusual hour	Proximity alone (and lack of direct observation of Wing on the lot) was insufficient to particularize suspicion that Wing committed the dumping; stop was unlawful	Affirmed: viewing totality of circumstances, reasonable suspicion existed to justify the investigative stop
Whether Wing may appeal an allocution error despite a valid guilty plea and appellate-waiver	Plea and appellate waiver bar non-jurisdictional sentencing claims, so allocution claim should be waived	Denial of allocution renders the sentence unauthorized by statute (a jurisdictional defect) and therefore is appealable despite the plea waiver	Reversed sentence and remanded: allocution error is jurisdictional because the Criminal Sentencing Act mandates allocution; resentencing ordered where Wing must be given the opportunity to speak

State v. Watley, 109 N.M. 619 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (short temporal/physical proximity and being sole person in area can support reasonable suspicion)
State v. Garcia, 147 N.M. 134 (N.M. 2009) (proximity alone can be insufficient where other circumstances do not particularize suspicion)
Tomlinson v. State, 98 N.M. 213 (N.M. 1982) (Criminal Sentencing Act incorporates common-law allocution right for noncapital felonies; allocution required)
State v. Chavarria, 146 N.M. 251 (N.M. 2009) (sentencing court’s jurisdiction derives from statute; sentencing errors that render a sentence unauthorized are jurisdictional and appealable despite plea waivers)
State v. Yazzie, 376 P.3d 858 (N.M. 2016) (reasonable-suspicion standard and overlapping state/federal Fourth Amendment protections)