State v. Flores, 35,595

Defendant Margarita Flores pleaded no contest to attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced to nine years imprisonment plus two years parole.
The district court’s judgment and sentence imposed a mandatory $75 crime victims reparation fee under NMSA 1978, § 31-12-13(A)(1).
Flores is indigent and challenges only the imposition of the $75 fee on appeal, raising ripeness and ineffective-assistance arguments for the first time on appeal.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm; Flores filed a memorandum in opposition and moved to amend the docketing statement to add an ineffective-assistance claim based on trial counsel’s failure to challenge the fee.
The appellate court considered whether Flores’s challenge was ripe given no demand for payment had been made and whether the record supports an ineffective-assistance claim or a claim that the fee was outside the plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of challenge to mandatory $75 crime victims fee	State: Challenge premature because no demand for payment; indigency defense may be available later	Flores: Fee is ordered in judgment; no alternative/payment plan mentioned, so issue ripe now	Not ripe: Court affirms; challenge is speculative until fee demand/default occurs and indigency procedures are invoked
Whether prosecutor could waive the fee or it was part of plea	State: Statute makes fee mandatory at sentencing; prosecutor waiver does not bind court	Flores: Fee was not part of plea agreement	Court: Fee is statutory mandatory; no indication prosecutor could bind the court by waiver; argument rejected
Motion to amend docketing statement to add ineffective-assistance claim	State: Amendment raises nonviable claim because record lacks facts to show counsel deficient	Flores: Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to fee and fee was not in plea	Court: Denies amendment; record insufficient to make prima facie ineffective-assistance showing; habeas or indigency defense available later
Whether counsel ineffective for failing to challenge fee given indigency	State: Counsel not deficient because challenge would likely be premature and unsupported by record	Flores: Counsel should have challenged fee or the plea should have excluded it	Court: No deficient performance shown on record; trial counsel not ineffective on these grounds

State ex rel. Collier v. N.M. Livestock Bd., 316 P.3d 195 (NM Ct. App. 2014) (ripeness and avoidance of premature adjudication)
State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (denying amendments that raise nonviable issues)
State v. Roybal, 54 P.3d 61 (N.M. 2002) (standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal)
State v. Stenz, 787 P.2d 455 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make motions unsupported by record)