State v. Holguin, 35,206

Background

Defendant Ernest Holguin was convicted by a jury of possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner (shank found in a jail cell).
At trial, the State presented testimony that the shank was found in Holguin’s cell and that Holguin was the sole occupant; a sergeant testified Holguin admitted owning the shank.
Holguin testified he had a cellmate and denied ownership; his defense emphasized non-exclusive access to the cell and attacked officer credibility.
Trial counsel did not object to the jury instruction defining "possession" nor request the bracketed UJI language cautioning that mere proximity or knowledge alone is not possession.
On appeal Holguin sought to amend his docketing statement to add claims of (1) fundamental instructional error (failure to include the bracketed UJI language) and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to request the omitted instruction and to obtain/documentary/corroborating evidence).
The Court of Appeals issued a notice proposing summary affirmance, considered Holguin’s memorandum in opposition and motions to amend, and ultimately denied the motions and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Holguin)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support possession conviction	Evidence showed shank found in Holguin’s cell, Holguin was sole occupant, and Holguin admitted ownership; sufficient for conviction	Evidence was unreliable; officers had motive to lie; Holguin had a cellmate and was not sole possessor	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, sufficient evidence supported conviction
Failure to include bracketed UJI language cautioning proximity ≠ possession (instructional error / fundamental error)	Instruction given tracked UJI and was adequate under facts presented	Omitted language caused fundamental error because case involved constructive possession in a shared cell	Denied amendment; no fundamental error — proximity was not the State’s theory and evidence supported exclusive access or an admission of ownership, so omitted language would not have been required
Ineffective assistance: failure to request omitted instruction	Counsel’s tactical choices can be reasonable; no prejudice shown	Counsel was ineffective for failing to request cautionary instruction	Denied — counsel’s strategy to pursue non-exclusive access was rational; no prima facie prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance: failure to obtain documentary/corroborating evidence and witnesses	No record proof of the omitted documentary evidence or the expected testimony of unnamed witnesses; issues outside record cannot be considered	Counsel failed to obtain grievance/cellmate documentation and failed to interview witnesses who would corroborate cellmate claim	Denied on appeal for lack of prima facie showing; preserved for habeas to develop record if desired

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (discussing appellate review when conflicting evidence exists and jury may reject defendant’s version)
State v. Barber, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633 (framework for fundamental-error review of omitted jury instructions)
State v. Benally, 131 N.M. 258, 34 P.3d 1134 (standard of review for preserved vs. unpreserved jury instruction errors)
State v. Brietag, 108 N.M. 368, 772 P.2d 898 (exclusive occupancy supports inference of control/constructive possession)
State v. Plouse, 133 N.M. 495, 64 P.3d 522 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)