People v. Aguilar
317 P.3d 1255
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Antonio Aguilar, pro se, appeals a Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction relief denial for ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Facts: Aguilar and accomplices committed a home invasion; the victim died; juries found him guilty of first and second degree burglary, theft, robbery, and conspiracy; felony murder was charged but the jury hung, and the charge was mistried.
- Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder before retrial of felony murder in exchange for dismissal of the felony murder charge, resulting in a total sentence of 57 years.
- On January 6, 2009, Aguilar filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(c) alleging nine ineffective‑assistance claims; the district court denied without a hearing; this appeal follows.
- Standard procedural posture and the appellate court’s de novo review of the postconviction denial, with the question whether the implied acquittal rule bars retrial addressed among other issues.
- The prior division’s Aguilar I decision merged first and second-degree burglary and affirmed other aspects; Batson issue raised but abandoned on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied acquittal bars retrial after a hung greater charge | Aguilar argues implied acquittal blocks retrial for felony murder | Aguilar contends retrial is barred by double jeopardy due to implied acquittal | Hung jury rule controls; retrial on felony murder permissible |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not hiring a DNA expert | Aguilar contends counsel’s failure to hire a DNA expert was deficient | Record shows trial strategy; no outside deficiency shown | No deficient performance; argument speculative and record-supported strategy |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not tendering a reckless manslaughter instruction | Aguilar argues trial counsel should have requested lesser-included instruction | Instruction would be inconsistent with defense theory that he did not participate | No error; instruction not required given defense theory |
| Whether plea advisement and voluntariness were deficient at Rule 11 hearing | Aguilar claims inadequate advice on sentencing and factual basis | Record shows advisement and voluntary plea | No deficient performance; plea voluntary and knowingly entered |
Key Cases Cited
- Ardolino v. People, 69 P.3d 73 (Colo.2003) (establishes Strickland standard for IAC and prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Blueford v. Arkansas, 132 S. Ct. 2044 (2012) (double jeopardy when jury deadlocks)
- Ortiz v. Dist. Court, 626 P.2d 642 (Colo.1981) (hung jury rule allows reprosecution of greater offense after deadlock on that offense)
- People v. Chaves, 190 P.3d 760 (Colo.App.2007) (lesser-offense instructions require rational basis and consistency with defense)
- Gordon, 32 P.3d 575 (Colo.App.2001) (standard for lesser included offenses and defense theory)
- Sanchez-Martinez v. People, 250 P.3d 1248 (Colo.2011) (knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered plea)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (plea validity depends on voluntary and intelligent choice)
- Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (Alford plea context for voluntariness)