February 14, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Edgar Martinez, No. A-1-CA-37424

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Filed 2/14/2019 8:51 AM
Plaintiff-Appellee, nm
Mark Reynolds
V. NO. A-1-CA-37424
EDGAR MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA ANA COUNTY

Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
{1} Defendant Edgar Martinez appeals his convictions 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, to wit: criminal sexual penetration in the third degree.

[DS 2; RP 54-56, 107-14] We proposed to affirm in a notice of proposed summary

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

disposition. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and motion to amend the
docketing statement, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm
Defendant’s convictions and deny his motion to amend the docketing statement.
Sufficiency of the Evidence

2} In his docketing statement, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his convictions. [DS 8] In our notice of proposed disposition, we
set forth the relevant jury instructions and our understanding of the trial evidence.
[CN 3-6] Based on the information before this Court, we proposed to conclude that
there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. [CN 4-7] In
response, Defendant maintains his previous arguments. [MIO 3-4] Notably,
Defendant’s memorandum in opposition does not point to any specific errors in fact
or in law in our notice of proposed disposition. See Hennessy v. Duryea,
1998-NMCA-036, ¥ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly
held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the
proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon,
1988-NMCA-027, J 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (explaining that the repetition
of earlier arguments does not meet a party’s burden to come forward and specifically
point out errors of law or fact in a notice of proposed summary disposition),

superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris,

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

2013-NMCA-031, 93, 297 P.3d 374). Therefore, we are unpersuaded by Defendant’s
memorandum in opposition.

Motion to Amend

3} Defendant seeks to amend his docketing statement to add an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. [MIO 1-3] This Court will grant a motion to amend only
upon a showing of viability. See generally State v. Ibarra, 1993-NMCA-040, § 13,
116 N.M. 486, 864 P.2d 302 (observing that a motion to amend will be denied if the
issue is not viable).

{4} In order to establish any entitlement to relief based on ineffective assistance of
counsel, Defendant must make a prima facie showing by demonstrating that: (1)
counsel’s performance fell below that of a reasonably competent attorney; (2) no
plausible, rational strategy or tactic explains counsel’s conduct; and (3) counsel’s
apparent failings were prejudicial to the defense. See State v. Herrera,
2001-NMCA-073, 7 36, 131 N.M. 22, 33 P.3d 22 (setting out the factors for a prima
facie case of ineffective assistance).

{5} | Defendant asserts that his attorney was deficient by failing to move to sever
unrelated counts. [MIO 1-2] He contends that the first two counts of criminal sexual

penetration in the first degree (child under 13) were dismissed following a directed

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

verdict, and those two counts were unrelated to the counts for which he was
convicted. [MIO 2]

{6} In State v. Lacey, 2002-NMCA-032, ¢ 26, 131 N.M. 684, 41 P.3d 952, we
determined that “there was a potential rational trial strategy for not moving to sever
the counts[,]” and we stated that “[t]he record reveal[ed] defense counsel’s attempt
to undermine the credibility of all the charges by trying the weaker counts along with
the stronger counts.” [MIO 2-3] See State v. Mares, 1991-NMCA-052, 4 17, 112
N.M. 193, 812 P.2d 1341 (holding that counsel’s failure to move for severance was
a reasonable trial tactic, in that the record reflected that defense counsel attempted to
transfer the lack of the first victim’s confidence to the state’s entire case). Defendant
asks this Court to revisit the holding in Lacey. [MIO 3]

{7} | We decline to revisit Lacey or Mares at this time. Moreover, based on the
information before this Court, we conclude that Defendant has failed to make a prima
facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel, and we therefore deny his motion
to amend. If Defendant wishes to pursue the matter further, we suggest that habeas
proceedings would be the appropriate avenue. See generally State v. Baca,
1997-NMSC-059, 25, 124 N.M. 333, 950 P.2d 776 (“A record on appeal that
provides a basis for remanding to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on

ineffective assistance of counsel is rare. Ordinarily, such claims are heard on petition

11

12
13

14
15

for writ of habeas corpus[.]”); State v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109, § 25, 122 N.M.
476, 927 P.2d 31 (“This Court has expressed its preference for habeas corpus
proceedings over remand when the record on appeal does not establish a prima facie
case of ineffective assistance of counsel.”).

{8} For the reasons stated in this opinion, as well as those provided in our notice
of proposed disposition, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and deny his motion to
amend the docketing statement.

{9} IT IS SO ORDERED.

Pa Pin mee

NDA M. VANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

r

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

fis tore Bogert

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge