State v. Guerra
278 P.3d 1031
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Convicted by jury of 32 counts of first degree criminal sexual penetration of a child under 13; offenses occurred 2001–2005; victims were defendant's two step-daughters.
- Appeal challenges ineffective assistance of counsel, and constitutional challenges to charging periods (speedy trial and due process/double jeopardy).
- Court of Appeals of New Mexico issued memorandum opinion affirming convictions rather than publishing; not selected for New Mexico Reports.
- Defendant argued three ineffectiveness theories: failure to request a bill of particulars, failure to object to trial-date extensions (speedy-trial issue), and failure to challenge indictment structure.
- Court found no deficient performance or prejudice on any of the three ineffectiveness theories and addressed double jeopardy alongside due process claims, ultimately affirming convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance: lack of bill of particulars | Guerra | Guerra's counsel failed to request a bill of particulars | No reversible error; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance: speedy-trial extensions | Guerra | Delays prejudiced by extensions; testimonial depositions misleading | No reversible error; no demonstrated prejudice or fundamental error |
| Ineffective assistance: indictment—ongoing criminal conduct counts | Guerra | Indictment should have charged ongoing-criminal-conduct counts | Not adequately developed; no fundamental error; not showing deficient performance |
| Double jeopardy and due process regarding charging periods | Guerra | Charging periods violate due process and risk double jeopardy | No double-jeopardy reversal; due process not preserved on appeal; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Quinones, 2011-NMCA-018, 149 N.M. 294, 248 P.3d 336 (NM Court of Appeals (2011)) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Aker, 2005-NMCA-063, 137 N.M. 561, 113 P.3d 384 (NM Court of Appeals (2005)) (deficiency and prejudice in ineffective-assistance analysis)
- In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039, 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318 (NM Court of Appeals (1996)) (prejudice requires more than unsubstantiated assertions)
- Gonzales, 2011-NMCA-007, 149 N.M. 226, 247 P.3d 1111 (NM Court of Appeals (2011)) (fundamental error review requires error and miscarriage of justice showings)
- Baldonado, 1998-NMCA-040, 124 N.M. 745, 955 P.2d 214 (NM Court of Appeals (1998)) (factors for time-specific charging in indictments)
- Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 (New Mexico Supreme Court (2009)) (speedy-trial framework; triggering mechanism is delay length, not alone presumptive prejudice)
- Templeton, 2007-NMCA-108, 142 N.M. 369, 165 P.3d 1145 (NM Court of Appeals (2007)) (conduit for double jeopardy analysis in multiple- count indictments)
- Gutierrez, 2012-NMCA-013, 269 P.3d 905 (NM Court of Appeals (2012)) (arguments unsupported by record or argument not reviewed)