State v. Baldonado
33,551
| N.M. Ct. App. | Feb 20, 2017Background
- Baldonado abused E.N. and D.N., the two daughters of his girlfriend Medina, while residing with them.
- Arrest occurred on February 19, 2007; indictment followed on March 1, 2007.
- Defense demanded a speedy trial on March 21, 2007 amid multiple continuance requests.
- The district court granted numerous continuances, rescheduled settings, and at times declared a manifest-necessity mistrial, delaying trial.
- A jury convicted Baldonado on seven CSP first degree counts, four CSCM second degree counts, twenty-six CSCM third degree counts, and one attempt to commit CSP first degree.
- On appeal, Baldonado challenged speedy-trial rights, ineffective assistance, exclusion of evidence, and the second-vs-third degree CSCM sentencing; the court remanded for CSCM second-degree counts to be reclassified as third degree and resentenced, with other portions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial violation claim | Baldonado asserts a fundamental error due to delay in trial | State caused most delays; some delays were defendant's or district-court actions | No fundamental error; four Barker factors do not show a striking violation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to raise speedy-trial issue | Record insufficient to show reasonable strategy or prejudice | Not addressed on direct appeal; prongs not satisfied due to record lack; may pursue in habeas corpus |
| Exclusion of Medina testimony | Medina's testimony could show a potential alternate offender | Testimony was not relevant or probative; self-serving and lacking factual basis | Not an abuse of discretion; evidence not legally relevant to show Medina's father as offender |
| Illegal sentence on CSCM counts | Counts 19, 26, 32, 38 labeled CSCM second degree | Jury verdict actually supported third degree CSCM | Counts remanded to CSCM third degree with resentencing; otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 (NMSC-2009) (preservation and prejudice considerations for speedy-trial claims)
- State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (NMSC-1999) (speedy-trial review for fundamental error; presumption of correctness on record gaps)
- State v. Arrendondo, 2012-NMSC-013, 366 P.3d 1121 (NMSC-2012) (defendant's actions and defense counsel's decisions on delay; recording requirements)
- State v. Trujillo, 2012-NMCA-092, 287 P.3d 344 (NMCA-2012) (second-degree CSCM elements; third-degree under similar charge structure)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy-trial balancing factors)