State v. Maldonado, 34,119

Maldonado pled guilty to two counts of child abuse in 2010, received a suspended six‑year sentence and five years supervised probation.
Probation conditions prohibited violating state law and possession/use/distribution of controlled substances except legally prescribed; he was required to report arrests.
Multiple probation violations occurred (2012 drug-related revocation; May 2013 aggravated battery charge). Evidence included illegal mushrooms in a medical‑marijuana container, positive drug tests, and officer testimony about the alleged battery victim’s injuries.
Defense counsel Salazar missed filing/disclosure deadlines and failed to make a defense witness available for interview; the court excluded that witness and later revoked probation (240 days), then reinstated probation with added conditions including a ban on medical marijuana use even with a valid card. Maldonado completed probation in March 2016.
Maldonado appealed, arguing (1) the medical‑marijuana ban was illegal/unreasonable, (2) the court abused discretion by excluding a witness, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for Salazar’s failures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Validity of probation condition banning medical marijuana	Maldonado: ban is illegal/unreasonable and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment	State: probation court has broad discretion; condition was reasonable given drug‑related violations and allegations of sale/use	Moot — appeal dismissed on merits: no live controversy; court declines discretionary review and defers to district court discretion
2. Exclusion of defense witness at probation violation hearing	Maldonado: exclusion was abuse of discretion and caused collateral consequences	State: counsel missed deadlines and court properly excluded witness under disclosure rules	Moot — no relief available; court declines to reach merits and rejects asserted collateral‑consequence argument
3. Ineffective assistance for failing to schedule witness interview	Maldonado: Salazar’s failure to make witness available was objectively unreasonable and prejudiced outcome	State: presumption of reasonable strategy; but record shows counsel admitted carelessness	No ineffective assistance — performance was deficient, but Maldonado failed to show prejudice; outcome likely unchanged
4. Failure to obtain lapel‑camera video	Maldonado: counsel ineffective for not securing video evidence	State: record has no facts showing video existed or its contents	Not considered on direct appeal — insufficient record to evaluate claim

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Arrington, 115 N.M. 559 (incarceration may be cruel and unusual in rare cases of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
State v. Garcia, 137 N.M. 583 (district court has broad discretion to set probation conditions relevant to rehabilitation)
State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655 (counsel’s duty to obtain and present exculpatory evidence and witnesses)
State v. Boergadine, 137 N.M. 92 (standard of review for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Hunter, 140 N.M. 406 (presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within reasonable professional assistance)
State v. Roybal, 132 N.M. 657 (appellate review limited to facts in the record)
State v. Casares, 318 P.3d 200 (noting requirement to cite authority to support appellate arguments)