City of Roswell v. Lucero
A-1-CA-35874
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Frank Lucero appealed multiple traffic-related convictions from magistrate court (e.g., driving with suspended license, no financial responsibility, registration, plate display, and stop lamp violation).
- The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition recommending reversal due to an apparent absence of a valid waiver of counsel for de novo proceedings in district court.
- The City conceded the lack of a signed waiver and acknowledged the potential structural error but argued Defendant had "manufactured" the error by misleading the magistrate court into believing he had waived counsel.
- The record before the Court of Appeals contained only dry, context-free magistrate-court documents; the City sought to supplement the record, but the court denied that motion because the materials related to separate matters and were not properly in the record.
- The docketing statement asserted Defendant was not advised of the right to counsel, did not waive counsel, and no Faretta hearing occurred in the district court; the City did not dispute these assertions, so they were accepted as true.
- Because advisement/waiver at the magistrate level does not suffice for subsequent de novo district-court proceedings and the record did not show an intelligent waiver, the court found structural error and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant waived right to counsel for de novo district-court proceedings | Lucero manufactured the error by writing "not guilty" on waiver form and led magistrate to believe he waived counsel; thus invited error bars challenge | Lucero asserted he was not advised of right to counsel in district court, never waived, and no Faretta hearing occurred | Court accepted Defendant's uncontested assertions, found no valid waiver on record for de novo proceedings, and reversed for structural error |
| Whether the record may be supplemented to show a valid waiver | City asked to supplement with materials (allegedly showing waiver) | Defendant opposed; record lacked evidence of waiver and supplemental materials were not part of the magistrate record | Court denied City’s motion to supplement because materials related to separate matters and were not properly in record |
| Whether alleged gamesmanship by Defendant constitutes invited error barring relief | City urged invited-error doctrine because Defendant allegedly deceived magistrate | Defendant maintained no advisement/waiver occurred at de novo stage | Court noted gamesmanship would be concerning but refused to apply invited-error relief given the silent record and accepted uncontested facts in docketing statement |
| Remedy for denial of counsel advisement/waiver | City implicitly argued reversal unnecessary due to facts or invited error | Defendant sought reversal and new proceedings with proper advisement | Court treated the error as structural (complete denial of counsel) and ordered automatic reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- No official reporter citations were provided in the opinion for the New Mexico cases cited; the opinion relied on state precedents addressing waiver of counsel, invited error, record supplementation, and structural error (e.g., State v. Arellano; State v. Swafford; State v. Baca; State v. Gallegos; Lopez v. State; State v. Martin; State v. Rivera).