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 was charged and pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine, and larceny over $500. He was in jail for over three years awaiting trial while his counsel litigated the fee structure for contract counsel. The Defendant appealed, contending ineffective assistance of counsel due to delays and failure to file speedy trial motions earlier.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and suggested that the Defendant’s claims would be more appropriately handled through a habeas corpus proceeding (paras 2-3).
• Defendant-Appellant (Michael Stephen Keaton): Contended that he suffered from ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly due to counsel's failure to file speedy trial motions earlier and the delay caused by counsel litigating the fee structure for contract counsel. The Defendant also sought to add issues regarding the violation of his right to a speedy trial and due process rights due to excessive appellate delay (paras 2-6, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant suffered ineffective assistance of counsel due to delays and failure to file speedy trial motions earlier.
• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether excessive appellate delay violated the Defendant's due process rights.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the guilty plea and the convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, Judge Kristina Bogardus, and Judge Zachary A. Ives, found that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court noted that the Defendant's claims regarding ineffective assistance were more appropriately addressed through a habeas corpus proceeding. The Court distinguished the present case from State v. Castro, finding no facts to support the assertion that counsel's failure to file certain motions was due to inadequate pay. The Court also found that the Defendant's motion styled as a motion to reconsider was effectively a motion to withdraw his plea but did not provide an adequate record to review the ineffective assistance claim. The Court denied the motion to amend to include issues regarding the violation of the right to a speedy trial and due process rights due to excessive appellate delay, citing a lack of adequate record and the availability of post-sentence coram nobis relief under Rule 5-803 NMRA. The Court concluded that the Defendant had not presented any persuasive facts, authority, or argument to oppose the proposed disposition (paras 1-11).