State v. Cordova, 6 N.M. 454

In June 2011 Cordova pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated battery, felon in possession of a firearm, and tampering with evidence; sentenced as a habitual offender to 4½ years plus a one‑year mandatory enhancement, with all but one year suspended and two years supervised probation.
The State moved to revoke probation in September 2012; a violation hearing was set for October 17, 2012. Public Defender Shoshanah Epstein entered appearance October 15 and first met Cordova on the day of the hearing.
On October 17 the State had offered a seven‑year plea to resolve the revocation matter; Cordova indicated he would not accept it. The hearing was continued to October 18 before Judge Martinez.
On October 18 Judge Martinez found Cordova violated probation (failure to report, provide hospital/morphine documentation, and attend counseling). At sentencing Epstein asserted she was ineffective for failing to advise Cordova about the seven‑year offer and for inadequate investigation.
The district court initially found ineffectiveness but then retracted and ultimately declined to order a new hearing; Cordova was sentenced to nineteen years and appealed, asking for a remand for an evidentiary hearing and, alternatively, relief under Lafler to require the State to reoffer the seven‑year plea.

Issue	Cordova's Argument	State/Court Argument	Held
Counsel ineffective for failing to investigate Cordova's hospitalization (reason for missed reporting)	Epstein failed to investigate or learn Cordova had been hospitalized; that failure prejudiced outcome	Record lacks evidence what investigation would have shown or that it would have changed result	No prima facie showing of prejudice; claim fails on appeal
Counsel ineffective for not contacting probation officer or substance‑abuse counselor	Failure to interview these witnesses prevented rebuttal of violation evidence	No record evidence what those witnesses would have said or that testimony would aid defense	No prima facie showing; claim fails
Lafler claim: counsel’s advice caused rejection of 7‑year plea and worse sentence (seek reoffer)	Counsel’s inadequate explanation caused Cordova to reject the seven‑year offer; he is entitled to remedy (reoffer) under Lafler	No evidence on the record that but for counsel Cordova would have accepted, prosecution would not have withdrawn, or court would have accepted plea	Failed to make prima facie showing under Lafler; remand for evidentiary hearing denied
Whether to remand for an evidentiary hearing on IAC and Lafler claims	Cordova seeks remand for evidentiary hearing to develop record	Court prefers habeas proceedings for full record; will remand only if prima facie case exists on appeal	No remand; conviction and sentence affirmed; Cordova may pursue habeas corpus

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lytle v. Jordan, 130 N.M. 198 (N.M. 2001) (defines reasonable‑probability prejudice standard under Strickland)
Patterson v. LeMaster, 130 N.M. 179 (N.M. 2001) (preference for resolving IAC claims in habeas rather than on direct appeal)
State v. Grogan, 142 N.M. 107 (N.M. 2007) (rare instance where appellate court reached merits because incompetence was obvious)
State v. Schoonmaker, 143 N.M. 373 (N.M. 2008) (concern that appellate record frequently lacks evidence essential to IAC determinations)