A-1-CA-34883•July 17, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Brady Brunson, No. A-1-CA-34883
July 17, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Brady Brunson, No. A-1-CA-34883
A-1-CA-34883Nmctapp
Testo completo
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-34883
5 BRADY BRUNSON,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY
8 Donna J. Mowrer, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 Lauren J. W olongevicz, Assistant Attorney General
12 Albuquerque, NM
13 for Appellee
14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
15 B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
16 for Appellant
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 HANISEE, Judge.
19 {t} Defendant Brady Brunson appeals from his convictions by a Jury for
20 possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), contrary to NMSA 1978,
21 § 30-31-20 (2006) and possession of drug paraphernalia, contrary to NMSA 1978,
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/17/2019 11:20 AM1 § 30-31-25.1 (2001). On appeal, the sole claim of error Defendant raises is that the
2 district court erred by denying his motion to suppress all evidence arising out of a
3 traffic stop that Defendant contends was not justified by reasonable suspicion. The
4 State responds by conceding that reasonable suspicion did not justify the traffic stop.
5 Although we are not bound by the State's concession, having reviewed the record
6 on appeal, we accept it. See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-027, 19, 284 P.3d 1076
7 (accepting the state's concession that there was insufficient evidence to support the
8 defendant's tampering conviction although appellate courts are not required to do
9 so). We agree with the State that the relevant facts do not support the district court's
10 conclusion that "the traffic stop [was] based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal
11 activity." Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of Defendant's motion
12 to suppress and remand to the district court to vacate Defendant's convictions.
13 {2}
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 WE CONCUR:
17 ~,-...~
18 KRfsriNABO~~,J
19 ~1'.l1~20 MEGAN.riUFFY,Ju~
J. l\fILES HANISEE, Judge
2Ti chiedi come si applica questo testo alla tua situazione?
Consulenza gratuita, senza impegno
Descrivi la tua situazione. Il nostro team ti ricontatterà via e-mail per la tua consulenza.
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.