State v. Cruz, 486 P.3d 1

Background

June 30, 2017: Cruz was arraigned on a misdemeanor charge, requested a public defender, and the magistrate conditionally appointed the Law Offices of the Public Defender (LOPD).
At that same arraignment the magistrate accepted a no-contest plea and set sentencing while Cruz had no counsel and had not waived the right to counsel.
On August 4, 2017, an LOPD attorney entered an appearance and moved to withdraw the uncounseled plea; the magistrate denied the motion and sentenced Cruz (suspended jail, fines, probation).
Cruz timely appealed to district court; the district court dismissed the appeal for dormancy and later dismissed with prejudice under a six-month rule; the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed.
The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari, held (sua sponte) that the no-contest plea was void because Cruz was deprived of counsel at the critical guilt-determination stage, and reversed the Court of Appeals; it also held the district court lacked authority to dismiss under the abolished six-month rule.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Cruz's Argument	Held
1) Was Cruz deprived of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the magistrate accepted a no-contest plea at arraignment?	Argued plea was unconditional and that appeal was waived; did not press deprivation below.	Counselless plea violated Sixth Amendment and due process; counsel had been requested and conditionally appointed.	Held: Yes — plea entered without counsel was a structural Sixth Amendment violation and denied due process; reversal required.
2) Is a conviction obtained by an uncounseled plea void, and does such a plea waive the right to appeal?	Waiver: State argued Cruz’s non-conditional plea waived appellate rights.	A conviction obtained in violation of the Constitution is void and does not waive appeal.	Held: The plea was void; Cruz remained an aggrieved party entitled to appeal.
3) Was the district court authorized to dismiss Cruz’s timely-filed appeal for case dormancy (the so-called six-month rule) and did the defendant bear the burden to move a de novo appeal forward?	Conceded district court lacked a legal basis for dismissal under the Rules and that the six-month rule no longer applies.	Argued dismissal violated due process; defendant should not bear burden to bring de novo appeal to trial.	Held: District court erred — the six-month rule was abolished for district courts; the State (not defendant) bears the burden to bring the de novo trial forward.
4) Was counsel ineffective for failing to reinstate the appeal after the first dismissal, causing prejudice?	State defended dismissal below; alternatively conceded legal error by district court.	Claimed ineffective assistance under Strickland and Evitts because counsel’s errors led to dismissal with prejudice.	Held: Court did not resolve Strickland claim on the merits because conviction was vacated for deprivation of counsel; ineffective-assistance claim left unadjudicated.

Key Cases Cited

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (affirming right to appointed counsel in criminal cases)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (presumption against waiver of right to counsel)
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1972) (counsel required when imprisonment may result)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (structural errors not subject to harmless-error review)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (complete denial of counsel requires automatic reversal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard—performance and prejudice)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (guilty plea is itself a conviction; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (right to effective assistance on appeal; due process protects appeal as of right)
Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (U.S. 2002) (suspended sentence that may lead to imprisonment requires counsel)
State v. Savedra, 148 N.M. 301 (N.M. 2010) (abandoned six-month rule for district courts)