State v. Castro
2016 NMCA 85
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jesus M. Castro was charged in Feb 2009 with criminal sexual penetration; released on secured bond and tried to jury in April 2010 (mistrial) and again in Dec 2012 (conviction on one count).
- Nearly 3 years, 10 months elapsed from arrest to conviction; multiple continuances, missed settings, counsel substitution motions, and a long unexplained gap (Nov 2010–Feb 2012) in the docket.
- Defense counsel Jonathan Huerta never filed a pro forma or other speedy-trial demand and repeatedly sought to withdraw after the mistrial, citing unpaid fees; client says counsel communicated mainly about fees and not strategy.
- After conviction, substitute counsel filed a motion to dismiss for speedy-trial violation and a motion for new trial claiming ineffective assistance; the district court denied the speedy-trial dismissal and reconsideration.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals applied the Barker v. Wingo four-factor test, found the delay extraordinary and the causes of delay weigh heavily for defendant, and concluded there is prima facie evidence Huerta unreasonably failed to preserve the speedy-trial right.
- The Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance (especially counsel’s failure to assert the speedy-trial right) and, if warranted, for reevaluation of the Barker factors (including prejudice) in light of State v. Serros and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Castro's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Castro's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated | Delay was attributable in part to defense and client conduct; Barker factors do not favor dismissal | Excessive delay (~46 months) and State negligence weigh for dismissal; counsel’s failures prevented preservation | Remanded: Delay and State concession that negligence caused much delay weigh for defendant; further hearing required before final determination |
| Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for never asserting a speedy-trial demand | No plausible showing on record that counsel’s omission was unreasonable or prejudicial | Huerta’s total failure to assert speedy-trial right and focus on fees/withdrawal was unreasonable and prejudiced Castro’s ability to vindicate the right | Prima facie ineffective-assistance established as to failure to assert speedy-trial right; remand for evidentiary hearing to develop facts |
| If counsel ineffective, whether prejudice is established under Barker (actual prejudice) | District court found limited prejudice (defendant on release; typical stress) and weighed factor against defendant | Castro alleges oppressive conditions of release (forced relocation), long-term anxiety, job impact and fear of deportation—cumulative prejudice | District court should reevaluate prejudice at evidentiary hearing (including relocation and long-term stress) following guidance from Stock and Serros |
| Remedy/procedure | No further relief if no prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claims belong in collateral proceedings | Trial court evidentiary hearing and, if counsel ineffective, determine whether speedy-trial violation requires dismissal | Case remanded: district court to hold evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance and then decide speedy-trial violation; remaining claims preserved for remand appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- State v. Serros, 366 P.3d 1121 (N.M. 2016) (extraordinary delay shifts weight; State must account for its failure to bring case to trial)
- State v. Garza, 212 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2009) (appellate independent review of Barker factors while deferring to district court findings)
- State v. Stock, 147 P.3d 885 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (counsel neglect and extended delay can justify weighing assertion factor differently)
- State v. Brazeal, 790 P.2d 1033 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (prejudice for ineffective-assistance requires reasonable probability of different result)
- State v. Crocco, 327 P.3d 1068 (N.M. 2014) (standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- State v. Bernal, 146 P.3d 289 (N.M. 2006) (defendant must show counsel error and resulting prejudice for ineffective-assistance claim)