Case Law

Question 1

Edwards
Standard in plea

Answer 1

NMCA 2007

Question 2

Patterson
Prejudice in plea

Answer 2

2001 NMSC

Question 3

Edwards facts cite
Dovetail w -

Answer 3

Dovetail w Miera cumulative error

141 N.M. 491 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)

Fact summary - confessed to multiple csp, csc, delinquency of minor

Question 4

Matter of Padilla
Standard

Answer 4

2019

Question 5

State v Miera

Answer 5

NMCA 2017

Question 6

Matter of Padilla
Facts
Dovetail w -

Answer 6

2019
Dovetail w Strickland O’Connor cites prof standards 688 Strickland

Question 7

Strickland facts
3 crime facts - strength of gov case
Alleged deficient Perf

Answer 7

The worst facts possible
Triple murder
After kidnapping torturing
Confession
Death penalty - failure to seek psych eval, character wits, etc.

Question 8

SC case and holding re important Def issue

Answer 8

Question 9

Law rev perspective re criminal d importance

Answer 9

Taking Strickland Claims Seriously
Stephen F. Smith

Question 10

Burden -
case/method
Which circuit

Answer 10

Question 11

Strickland - o’Connor reasonableness link and cite

Answer 11

Cite - 688

Question 12

Law review - re D burden
prohibited state tactic and case

Answer 12

THE STRICKLAND STANDARD FOR CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: EMASCULATING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IN THE GUISE OF DUE PROCESS
RICHARD L. GABRIEL
1986

Question 13

Strickland - key word to avoid

Answer 13

Question 14

Roybal
Standard when there is a trial
Arg: standard summarized as-

Answer 14

Standard summarized as the strength of the states case

2002 NMSC

Question 15

Roybal
Test applied to facts

Answer 15

2002 NMSC

Question 16

Roybal
3 facts Evidence of guilt

Answer 16

2002 NMSC

Question 17

Standard cited for self serving
Standard for plea v trial

Answer 17

Question 18

State v. Favela cite
re
Judges limitations -
understanding of plea c -
Facts + court comments

Answer 18

The Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case extended this line of reasoning to its analysis of prejudice, noting that “[e]ven where warnings [by judges] are more specific, judges, given their position, cannot gauge defendants’ priorities, counsel defendants on how to proceed, or use the information strategically in negotiating pleas.” Favela, 2013–NMCA–102, ¶ 27, 311 P.3d 1213

“nervous defendant taking a plea in front of a criminal judge will rarely be able to meaningfully process the many formalized warnings included in the plea colloquy.” Id. ¶ 28 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{14} It is imperative that every defendant entering into a plea agreement which could result in immigration consequences possesses a clear understanding of those immigration consequences in order to protect both the rights of the pleading defendant and to avoid the uncertainty resulting from post-conviction challenges.

By first determining that a defendant understands the consequences of pleading guilty before accepting a plea agreement, district court judges serve a crucial gate-keeping function, allowing admittance of only those plea agreements which are entered into knowingly.

2015-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 13-14, 343 P.3d 178, 183

Question 19

State v. Saucedo
General comment on facts
facts and standard

Answer 19

Fact summary NOTHING ELSE - Defendant was charged by grand jury indictment with criminal sexual penetration (child under 13) (Count 1), sexual exploitation of children (manufacture) (Count 2), sexual exploitation of children (distribution) (Count 3), sexual exploitation of children (possession) (Count 4), voyeurism (under 18 years of age) (Count 5), and failure to register as a sex offender (Count 6). On October 30, 2018, Defendant entered a no contest plea to Counts 2 through 5.

Defendant did not present evidence beyond his own testimony regarding the facts of the case or how he was prejudiced

Defendant made no showing on this point in the district court proceedings, and on appeal, Defendant argues only that he would have gone to trial to hold the State to its usual burden of proof. Defendant’s allegations are no more than self-serving statements and are insufficient to prove prejudice. See Turner, 2017-NMCA-047, ¶ 38 (“An assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); id. ¶ 37 (“[C]ourts are reluctant to rely solely on the self-serving statements of defendants, which are often made after they have been convicted and sentenced.”).

2022 WL 17581796, at *3 (N.M. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2022),

Question 20

State v. Turner cite
facts w standard;
Self-serving;
but contradiction w Favella -

Answer 20

Fact summary - FACTS NOT DISCUSSED IN DEPTH, just “strong case” D allegedly had 6 bank accounts charged with 100s of fraud counts, state represented case was “overwhelming” COA noted he faced life sentence

{38} We conclude that it is improbable that Defendant, who was facing a life sentence if convicted and against whom the State had a strong case, would have gone to trial given that Kicklighter was able to negotiate a plea agreement under which he could potentially serve no prison time. Defendant’s assertion otherwise is merely a self-serving statement upon which we decline to rely. We conclude that Defendant’s position as to prejudice is essentially that Nedbalek would take the case to trial if given the opportunity, and we further conclude that his position is wholly self-serving and does not actually prove prejudice.

2017-NMCA-047, ¶ 38, 396 P.3d 184, 193

Contradiction w Favela - plea colliqoy fundamentally critici

Question 21

State v. Hunter cite
Standards applied for plea prej

Answer 21

We have previously recognized that “a defendant’s pre-conviction statements or actions may indicate whether he or she was disposed to plead or go to trial.” Id. ¶ 30 [PATTERSON]. We have also considered the strength of the State’s evidence, reasoning that a defendant may be more likely to plead guilty if the evidence against him is strong. Id. ¶ 31 (emphasizing that this inquiry is not to predict the outcome of a trial, but to determine whether defendant would have chosen to go to trial in light of the evidence).

2006-NMSC-043, ¶ 26, 140 N.M. 406, 414, 143 P.3d 168, 176

Question 22

State v. Hunter re Colloquy
Contradicts -

Answer 22

Contradicts - TURNER

{29} The State suggests that any prejudice to Defendant was effectively cured through the district court’s colloquy at the time the plea was entered. Defendant indicated both that he was satisfied with the advice provided by his attorney and understood that he was waiving his defenses. We recognize that the district court properly conducted the plea hearing, adhering to our rules governing the entry of pleas. Rule 5–303(F) NMRA 2006. This, however, cannot cure a defect caused by ineffective advice of counsel. A defendant cannot be held to have knowingly waived a defense if he has been incorrectly advised that it is without merit.

Question 23

State v. Hunter cite
re willingness to go to trial
Relief granted -
ARG: Willingness trial

Answer 23

There is evidence in the record that Defendant had additional reasons for seeking a swift resolution to his case. Counsel failed, however, to discuss any conditional plea option with Defendant. We have little doubt, based on this record, that Defendant would have pursued this option had it been discussed.

2006-NMSC-043, ¶ 28, 140 N.M. 406, 415, 143 P.3d 168, 177

Relief remanded, allowed to w plea

ARG: shows that court doesn’t expect literal “intends to go to trial” because this D wanted “swift resolution”

Question 24

State v. Silver cite
Worst fact

Answer 24

{31} We are convinced that Defendant did not confess because he was deceived about the consequences of doing so. To the contrary, Defendant was well aware that by confessing to having sex with his minor stepdaughter he was bringing serious legal consequences on himself, but he decided to do so anyway for reasons of his own. Defendant’s confession was not involuntary.

2018 WL 1325307, at *8 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2018)

paragraph 50 - Moreover, given the overwhelming strength of the State’s case against Defendant, and the virtual certainty of a conviction, we are not convinced that defense counsel’s conduct prejudiced Defendant. The Constitution required defense counsel to offer effective assistance. It did not require him to work a miracle.

2018 WL 1325307, at *12 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2018)

Question 25

State v. Cunningham cite
Facts w prejudice

Answer 25

{17} Here, Defendant argues generally that “there is more than a ‘reasonable probability’ that [Defendant] would have rejected the plea and gone to trial had he been properly advised.” However, he neither offers any explanation as to how counsel’s specific failure to advise him regarding SORNA prejudiced him nor points to any evidence to support the required inference that had counsel fully informed Defendant as required by Edwards, Defendant would have chosen to go to trial instead of pleading

, 2018 WL 1801152, at *4 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2018)

Question 26

Key concepts and cases
1 - Hindsight
2 - self serving in plea, standards
e.g.
a - confess to molesting daughter
b - confess to robbery
c - claim didn’t understand plea but evid hearing testimony contradicted
d - wouldn’t have taken fraud plea
e - understanding SORNA would have changed plea
3 - Colloquy
a - relied on
b - not relied on - judge questions re imm, colloquy re conditional plea
4 - prejudice - strength of case
a - immigration consequences
b - Sorna consequences - prej and no prej
c - lineup
d - cumulative
5 - standards for reasonable performance

Answer 26

1 - Strickland
2 - Patterson, Hunter
a - State v Silver
b - Roybal
c - Saucedo
d - Turner
e - Cunningham, Trammel, but remember Edwards
3 colloquy
a - Trammel, Cunningham, Saucedo
b - Favella, Hunter
4 Prejudice,
a - Favella
b - Edwards prej, Cunningham no prej
c - Patterson
d - Miera
5 - Strickland

Question 27

Garcia v state cite
Fact summary

Answer 27

2010-NMSC-023
Fact summary - child abuse death, footprint on stomach, “right shoe could not be eliminated”,

Key problem: no intent evidence, but no negligent charge
attorney tells client could be convicted even if accident

Question 28

Trammel cite

Facts and standard

Edwards prejudice facts -

Answer 28

2016-NMSC-030

26…. First, instead of immediately soliciting the advice of a lawyer following his apprisal of the SORNA registration requirement six months prior to his release, Defendant merely acquiesced.

We conclude that although counsel’s failure to advise Defendant of the SORNA registration requirement in his plea agreement was per se deficient performance under the first prong of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant failed to show that under Strickland’s second prong he had been prejudiced by that deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

27… In this case Defendant urges us to rely on speculation by his plea counsel that a different result in the proceedings would have been reached had the SORNA requirements of his plea not been overlooked. We cannot take such a leap without a more robust offer of evidence—beyond the self-serving testimony of Defendant and the speculation of his plea counsel. Thus, we conclude that Defendant has provided insufficient evidence that he would have rejected the instant plea agreement in favor of a trial on the merits, or some other result of the proceeding.

Edwards prejudice facts - not compared or analyzed, Eg Edwards confessed, etc, was the issue w Edwards the misleading statements re conditional discharge

Question 29

Arg and cases - plea colloquy uses

Answer 29

Arg: collloquy can be used to impeach self serving statements, but can’t be used to impeach deficient performance which is found to be prejudicial
Favella - C doesn’t help state . Turner - C does help state

Question 30

Strength of case argument 10 supporting cases

Answer 30

Strickland
Paterson
Hunter
Garcia
Roybal
Trammel
Cunningham
Turner
Silver
Saucedo

Question 31

Edwards Strength of State Case

Answer 31

Fundamental unfairness

Question 32

Possible interesting issues

Answer 32

Edwards and Trammel prejudice
Plea colloquy
Strickland history