State v. Barraza
1 N.M. Ct. App. 29
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Barraza pled no contest to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a fourth-degree felony, with acknowledgement that the conviction could affect immigration status.
- District court accepted the plea on January 31, 2008 and sentenced Barraza to 18 months, suspended with 18 months probation and 2 days credit for pre-sentence confinement.
- Probation terminated early on May 8, 2009; by July 2008 Barraza remained under the restraint of his conviction via probation.
- On or about July 8, 2008 Barraza filed a Rule 1-060 and Rule 5-304 petition seeking to vacate the plea or, in the alternative, coram nobis relief for ineffective assistance of counsel not advised on immigration consequences.
- The district court held a hearing February 10, 2009 and ultimately denied the petition on July 9, 2009; Barraza timely appealed.
- The State raised the jurisdiction issue: coram nobis relief under Rule 1-060(B) is available only if habeas corpus is unavailable or inadequate; Barraza was still in custody via probation, so habeas relief under Rule 5-802 should govern.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction under Rule 1-060(B). | Barraza claims coram nobis relief is proper where no other remedy exists. | Barraza argues Rule 1-060(B) allows relief for ineffective assistance when related to immigration consequences. | No jurisdiction under Rule 1-060(B) while custody/restraint exists; habeas corpus required. |
| Whether coram nobis relief is available after coram nobis was abolished and subsumed into Rule 1-060. | Coram nobis survives under Rule 1-060(B). | Common-law coram nobis remains viable through 1-060(B). | Coram nobis relief is not available except as habeas relief under Rule 5-802. |
| Whether Barraza could pursue habeas corpus relief under Rule 5-802 while still in custody. | Habeas relief is available for ineffective assistance claims. | Rule 1-060(B) petition is a proper vehicle for coram nobis-type relief despite custody. | Barraza was still in custody (probation) on July 8, 2008; habeas corpus relief under Rule 5-802 was available, precluding 1-060(B). |
| Whether the district court’s use of Rule 1-060(B) was harmless error or should be treated as habeas petition. | Treat the petition as habeas corpus review. | Court could construe conduct as habeas relief if appropriate. | We lack jurisdiction to convert or review as habeas petition; only Supreme Court review per Rule 5-802(H)(2). |
| What is the proper remedy and disposition given the above. | Proceed under Rule 1-060(B) to obtain relief. | Petition should be treated as habeas or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Petition under Rule 1-060(B) cannot be used; reverse and remand to dismiss without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tran, 2009-NMCA-010 (2009) (coram nobis abolished; 1-060(B) governs relief when habeas unavailable)
- Paredez, 2004-NMSC-036 (2004) (attorney duty to advise on immigration consequences; ineffective assistance if prejudice shown)
- Carlos, 2006-NMCA-141 (2006) (counsel must interpret immigration law and advise almost certain deportation outcome)
- Case v. Hatch, 2008-NMSC-024 (2008) (labels and review of habeas vs. non-habeas petitions; supreme court jurisdiction)
- Duncan v. Kerby, 115 N.M. 344 (1993) (Rule 5-802 habeas corpus relief as remedy for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Correa, 2009-NMSC-051 (2009) (abandonment of issues when not briefed on appeal)
- State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059 (1997) (habeas relief controls custody-based relief)
- Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045 (2005) (court may limit review where arguments lack authority)