This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Over ten years ago, the Petitioner entered a no contest plea to two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree and was sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment. The Petitioner later claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, as his trial counsel failed to conduct a meaningful investigation, did not inform him of a more favorable plea offer, and falsely claimed to have met with the judge on his behalf (paras 2-3, 7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted the Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus, set aside his plea of no contest, and vacated his conviction and sentence, finding that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (State of New Mexico and Warden): Argued that the district court erred in granting the habeas corpus petition and that the trial counsel's actions were reasonable litigation tactics (para 9).
- Appellee (Petitioner): Argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel's failure to investigate, inform him of a better plea offer, and false statements regarding meeting with the judge (paras 7-8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
- Whether the district court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's order granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, setting aside the Petitioner's no contest plea, and vacating his conviction and sentence (para 14).
Reasons
Per Curiam: The Court found that the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, including email correspondence and trial counsel's sworn testimony, which corroborated the Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial counsel's failure to conduct a meaningful investigation, inform the Petitioner of a more favorable plea offer, and false statements about meeting with the judge fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The Court concluded that these deficiencies prejudiced the Petitioner, as there was a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial instead of pleading no contest, given his consistent claims of innocence and the weakness of the State's case (paras 5-12).