July 8, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Manuel G. Lara, No. A-1-CA-38396

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,	2
Plaintiff-Appellee,	3
v. 	NO. A-1-CA-38396	4
MANUEL G. LARA,	5
Defendant-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUADALUPE COUNTY	7
Gerald E. Baca, District Judge	8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	9
Santa Fe, NM	10
for Appellee	11
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender	12
Santa Fe, NM	13
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender	14
Albuquerque, NM	15
for Appellant	16
MEMORANDUM OPINION	17
VARGAS, Judge.	18
{1} 	Defendant appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for unlawful taking	19
of a motor vehicle. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to	20
affirm. 	Defendant 	filed 	a 	memorandum 	in 	opposition, 	which 	we 	have 	duly	21
considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.	22
{2} 	On appeal, Defendant contends that he was prevented by his counsel from	23
testifying, infringing on his constitutional right to do so, and that, consequently, he	24
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/8/2020 9:19 AM

2
received ineffective assistance of counsel. Our notice proposed to affirm on the	1
grounds that the alleged strategic decision-making by counsel to dissuade Defendant	2
from testifying was not part of the record, and therefore a habeas corpus petition	3
would be the appropriate avenue for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.	4
[CN 3] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant raises no new facts or	5
arguments, and states that the private conversations with his attorney on which his	6
claims are based are not part of the available record. [MIO 1] See State v. Roybal,	7
2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 3, 132 N.M. 657, 54 P.3d 61 (“If facts necessary to a full	8
determination are not part of the record, an ineffective assistance claim is more	9
properly brought through a habeas corpus petition[.]”).	10
{3} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s notice of	11
proposed disposition, we affirm.	12
{4} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	13
_________________________________	14
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	15
WE CONCUR:	16
_________________________________	17
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge	18
_________________________________	19
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge	20