APPEAL
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Brett R.
Loveless, District Judge.
Hector
H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM M. Anne Kelly,
Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee.
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Kathleen T. Baldridge,
Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge.
{1}
Defendant Ernest Lee Bishop challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his convictions for one count of
possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine),
contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23 (2011); one count of
an expired registration plate, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section
66-3-18(B) (2007); and one count of possession of an open
container of alcohol, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-138
(2013). [1 Am. DS unpaginated 6; 2 Am. DS 2-3; RP 38-40, 81,
102-03] In this Court's notice of proposed disposition,
we proposed to affirm Defendant's convictions for
possession of methamphetamine and driving with an expired
registration, and we proposed to reverse Defendant's
conviction for possession of an open container of alcohol.
The State filed a timely response, and Defendant filed a
memorandum in opposition. Having considered the arguments on
appeal, we affirm in part, and reverse in part.
Possession
of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine).
{2}
In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to
conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which the
jury could conclude that Defendant had methamphetamine in his
possession; he knew it was methamphetamine or believed it to
be methamphetamine or believed it to be some drug or other
substance the possession of which is regulated or prohibited
by law; and this happened in New Mexico on or about July 18,
2014. [CN 3-5] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant
acknowledges that law enforcement officers found
methamphetamine in a cigarette package in the vehicle that he
was driving and that he told the officers that he smoked that
brand of cigarettes. [MIO 4; see also CN 4] However,
Defendant argues that the evidence does not establish that he
knew the methamphetamine was in the cigarette package. [MIO
4] Defendant claims that, because the methamphetamine was
found in the console between him and a female passenger, the
evidence permitted two reasonable interpretations-either
Defendant possessed the methamphetamine or the passenger
possessed the methamphetamine. [MIO 5-7] We are not persuaded
by this argument. As discussed in our notice of proposed
disposition, the jury was instructed that "[t]wo or more
people can have possession of an object at the same
time." [CN 3 (quoting RP 54)] Moreover, as an appellate
court, we will not reweigh the evidence. See State v.
McGhee, 1985-NMSC-047, ¶ 17, 103 N.M. 100, 703 P.2d
877 ("The determination of the weight and effect of the
evidence, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn
from both the direct and circumstantial evidence is a matter
reserved for determination by the trier of fact.").
{3}
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State
and resolving all conflicts and making all permissible
inferences in favor of the jury's verdict, we conclude
that a rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Defendant possessed methamphetamine on the date
in question. See State v. Slade, 2014-NMCA-088,
¶ 13, 331 P.3d 930. Accordingly, we affirm
Defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
Expired
Registration.
{4}
In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we
proposed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a
rational jury to conclude that Defendant operated a motor
vehicle on a street without a current registration on July
18, 2014. [CN 5-6] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant
admits that his vehicle had an expired registration, and the
expired nature of the registration was confirmed through
dispatch. [MIO 7] Nevertheless, Defendant maintains that
there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for
driving with an expired registration. [MIO 7-8] See State
v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982;
State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712
P.2d 1. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm Defendant's
conviction for driving with an expired registration.
Possession
of an Open Container of Alcohol.
{5}
In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to
conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support
Defendant's conviction for possession of an open
container of alcohol. [CN 6-7] Neither the State nor
Defendant oppose this proposed disposition. [State's
Response 1; MIO 1] Consistent with our notice of proposed
disposition, we reverse Defendant's conviction for
possession of an open container of alcohol.
{6}
For the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed
disposition and herein, we affirm Defendant's convictions
for possession of methamphetamine and driving with an expired
registration, and we reverse Defendant's conviction for
possession of an open container of alcohol.
{7}
IT ...