March 11, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Paul Stonecipher, No. A-1-CA-37703

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-37703
5 PAUL STONECIPHER,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
8 John Dean Jr., District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 	Santa Fe, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VANZI, Judge.
18 	{t} 	Defendant has 	appealed from 	a conviction for trafficking 	a 	controlled
19 	substance. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which
20 we proposed to uphold the conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in
21 	opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/11/2019 8:39 AM
Mark Reynolds

1 {2} 	Defendant has raised one issue, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to
2 support his conviction. [DS 4; MIO 1] As previously described, [CN 3-4] the State
3 presented evidence that a law enforcement officer arranged a meeting with Defendant
4 at a specified location for the purpose of purchasing methamphetamine. At that
5 location Defendant participated in the contemplated drug transaction by negotiating
6 the price, and Defendant ultimately took the money that the officer presented in
7 exchange for the methamphetamine. [MIO 1-2, 4] This evidence provides adequate
8 support for the jury's verdict. See, e.g., State v. Castleman, 1993-NMCA-019, ,r,r 2,
9 	19, 116 N.M. 467, 863 P.2d 1088 (observing that the testimony of an undercover
10 officer describing his purchase of a controlled substance from the defendant was
11 	sufficient to support a conviction for trafficking).
12 	{3} 	In his memorandum in opposition Defendant continues to argue that the State's
13 	evidence 	was 	insufficient 	to 	establish that 	he 	"caused 	the 	transfer" 	of the
14 methamphetamine because no evidence was presented that he actually touched the
15 	substance, and because a woman was also present who participated in the transaction
16 by weighing the substance and approving the negotiated price. [MIO 4] However, as
17 we previously observed, [CN 4-5] neither of these considerations warrants a different
18 	result. Defendant's facilitation of the transaction is sufficient to establish that he
2

1 "caused the transfer" of methamphetamine, such that is conviction is supported. See,
2 	e.g., State v. Bankert, 1994-NMSC-052, ,r,r 18-31, 117 N.M. 614, 875 P.2d 370
3 (affirming a conviction for trafficking by possession with intent to distribute, even
4 though the defendant "never touched the cocaine and was often not in the same room
5 where the drug deal took place," based on the defendant's actions as facilitator, and
6 further indicating that several people may simultaneously participate in a drug
7 transaction, regardless of actual physical possession of the substance).
8 {4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary
9 disposition and above, we affirm.
10 {5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13 	WE CONCUR:
UELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
3