323 P.3d 925
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual contact of minors; trials for related victims were severed but before the same judge.
- In the first case Defendant entered an Alford plea; the court accepted the plea but initially deferred adjudication of guilt pending resolution of other charges.
- The State moved to adjudicate guilt in the first case before the second trial so the conviction could be used to impeach Defendant if he testified; the court adjudicated guilt and permitted impeachment.
- Defense renewed objections pretrial; at trial Defendant testified and, on direct, preemptively disclosed he is a convicted felon; State later impeached and referenced the conviction in closing.
- Jury convicted Defendant on one count in the second prosecution; Defendant appealed, arguing (1) improper impeachment with the Alford-based conviction and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for various omissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior conviction (Alford plea) for impeachment | State: conviction was validly adjudicated and is admissible under Rule 11-609(A)(1) to impeach credibility | Allen: Alford plea/adjudication was deferred and should not count as a conviction for impeachment | Court: admission proper; adjudication converted plea into a conviction for impeachment; no reversible error |
| Preservation after preemptive disclosure of conviction on direct | State: Defendant waived appellate review by putting the conviction before the jury after adverse in limine ruling | Allen: preserved—objected pretrial and obtained ruling; preemptive disclosure was tactical and does not waive review | Court: preserved; New Mexico follows precedent allowing appeal despite preemptive disclosure when objection and ruling were made |
| Timing/process of district court adjudicating guilt to enable impeachment | State: court has discretion to adjudicate and use conviction for impeachment | Allen: timing and procedure were improper and prejudicial | Court: no authority bars adjudication before sentencing; adjudication was lawful and within court’s discretion |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (redirect, specific direct questions, timing evidence) | State: record insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice; counsel presumed competent | Allen: counsel failed to rehabilitate testimony and elicit/exclude key facts | Court: claims undeveloped on record; no prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice; issue better raised via habeas petition |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (Alford plea framework)
- Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (U.S. 2000) (defendant’s preemptive admission may effect waiver of appellate review under federal rule)
- State v. Keener, 639 P.2d 582 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981) (conviction or guilty verdict constitutes a conviction for impeachment even if judgment/sentence not final)
- State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of evidence)