State v. Fierro
1 N.M. Ct. App. 739
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Eric Fierro was arrested on June 24, 2004 and charged with multiple counts of CSP, CSC, and related offenses for sexually abusing Vanessa from age six to eighteen.
- The State filed several six-month Rule 5-604 NMRA extensions for delays tied to DNA results and defense counsel changes.
- Defendant switched counsel multiple times and initially sought a speedy trial while the district court managed ongoing discovery and representation conflicts.
- Defense and State negotiated continuances and various determinations regarding whether to allow self-representation and the need for new counsel.
- A mistrial occurred in August 2008 due to Vanessa’s testimony, followed by retrial in January 2009, resulting in convictions on the charged counts.
- Fierro appeals arguing a 55-month delay violated his speedy trial rights and raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; the State argues the delay was justified by defense changes and court efforts to ensure adequate representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 55-month delay violated speedy trial rights | Fierro | Fierro claims significant delay violates Barker factors | No violation; delay weighed against Fierro overall |
| Whether delays were attributable to Fierro’s counsel changes | State | Fierro contends delays due to defense shortcomings | Delays attributed to Fierro’s changes weighed against him; not a State violation |
| Whether Fierro received ineffective assistance of counsel | State | Fierro argues cumulative ineffectiveness | No ineffective-assistance shown; strategy judgments not reqs for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038 (N.M. 2009) (balancing test for speedy-trial claims; four Barker factors)
- State v. Stock, 2006-NMCA-140 (N.M. App. 2006) (attorney neglect can weigh against State when systemic issues exist)
- Vermont v. Brillon, 129 S. Ct. 1292 (U.S. 2009) (counsel delay generally attributed to defendant unless institutional problems exist)
- Coffin v. State, 1999-NMSC-038 (N.M. 1999) (defendant’s assertion of speedy-trial rights undermined by other conduct delaying proceedings)
- Tranakos, 911 F.2d 1422 (10th Cir. 1990) (claims of diligence weighed against defendant’s actions during speedy-trial delays)
- Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1986) (weighing defendant’s conduct when asserting rights while contributing to delay)