AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Edgar Martinez, was convicted for two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree (under age 13) and one count of attempt to commit a felony, specifically criminal sexual penetration in the third degree (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge, February 14, 2019: Convictions for two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree and one count of attempt to commit a felony, to wit: criminal sexual penetration in the third degree, were affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and sought to amend his docketing statement to add an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, arguing that his attorney was deficient by failing to move to sever unrelated counts (paras 2, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions and opposed the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree and one count of attempt to commit a felony, to wit: criminal sexual penetration in the third degree.
• Whether the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be granted.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions and denied his motion to amend the docketing statement (para 8).

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge (HANISEE and BOGARDUS, Judges concurring):
  The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, as the Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not point to any specific errors in fact or in law in the Court's notice of proposed disposition (para 2).
  Regarding the motion to amend the docketing statement to add an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Court determined that the Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing required for such a claim. The Court referenced previous cases to illustrate that not moving to sever counts could be considered a rational trial strategy and, therefore, did not agree to revisit the holdings of those cases. The Court suggested that habeas proceedings would be the appropriate avenue for further pursuing the matter (paras 3-7).