# Appendix — Lucero v. New Mexico

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386005_1657%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1994
- **Citation:** 510 U.S. 1115

## Text

> ™ es 7 2 AE OB ee a

—

NM

Nh

Jy

Co

IN

THE STATE OF

WEDNESDAY,

-»
Cen
O

STATE

This matter

by

certiorari

Said petit

advised;
NOW,

that peti

certiorar

FURTHER

in Cause
returned
Appeals.

ATTEST:

KATHLEEN

CLERK OF

y ie SC
Giyzy IV

the Court upon petiti

39
THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW MEXICO

SEPTEMBER 22, 19

8

OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

coming on for consideration
for writ of
, and the Court having considered
ion, and being sufficiently

on

THEREFORE,

t 3

=

IT

writ of

ORDERED
on for
1 is denied.
ORDERED that the Recor
14385 is

to the

No.

Clerk of tl

re +? CONT

JO ai BSC N
, on
RT

SUPREME COU

o wt vn YW & WwW NY

NO NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY FP KF YFP FP YF YP FF YF YF
ony Hn WW &® WN YP OO WO} DDI KH WM & WN KF OO C-

|
|
.
7

40

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs
CHRIS LUCERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY

WILLIAM J. SCHNEDAR, District Judge

TOM UDALL, Attorney General
PATRICIA A. GANDERT,

Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee

RAMON I. GARCIA
Roswell, New Mexico
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

co Oo OY KH NT B® WwW HY BH

41
MEMORANDUM OPINION

PICKARD, Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction
of possession of fourteen ounces of
marijuana with intent to distribute
pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-
22 (Cum. Supp. 1991). Defendant raises
three issues on appeal: (1) whether
the trial court erred in ¢enying
Defendant’s motion to suppress the
evidence on the basis that the affidavit
was facially invalid for failure to
establish probable cause; (2) whether
the information contained in the
affidavit is stale because the affidavit
states that a small amount of marijuana
was seen at Defendant’s residence
seventy-two hours before the warrant
was issued; and (3) whether failure
to raise the issue of the “no knock

rule” constitutes fundamental error.

w ue) . W 1 @) Wa Y = . ) W) > S v
. wv > r 2 ™ 8) O — rs Q
a oO m Zz CS rH D DG 4g a a on a
i 4 O © 4d Q ~§ @ Bs © , ae
. TT N f Q 4 U S oO
O MY ‘ , qd Q4 Wu) ( ) QO, = - al i. ‘ OQ,
Qo Ou = TG a uy 'T © ’ )

qd ~ | & ~N © = . © S x “ c
4 3 ~ Ja : = a. a ea - fw @ » 8
— os =e fs wa we ey wt F 0 8 %F
a) [ , a Ad c ) hy N a v)) Ae) ds :
0 ) q ‘i ‘ .) : . + oO ' a) i ©
9) Cc cS 6 + r us uu @) © C Oy — = i Nn 7
m) = > = . co op) 4 b. nam —* Be - c ; 4
we wr . r 4 ‘ f cr -
~_ - E eo) c q OV eo 4 a ” = : Vv fe) =
m4 “ @
. © . : [x] W O WV > am, r ~ = r4 . QO. oO | . we Qi T

» 5 4

@ n ae (2 > « > | ¥
r A.4 ©

Submitted by

ERNON
SENIOR TRIAL PROSECUTOR

Noted:

MONICA MUNOZ e

ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386005_1657%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.