State v. Montoya, 35,938

Background

Defendant Thomas Montoya was on probation with conditions prohibiting committing domestic-abuse-related offenses and possessing deadly weapons.
The State alleged that Montoya entered his ex‑girlfriend’s home without permission, restrained her, put a knife to her throat, and cut the dog’s collar.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Montoya had violated probation by committing a state-law assault (assault with intent to commit a violent felony) and by possessing a deadly weapon.
The district court revoked Montoya’s probation; Montoya appealed that revocation.
On appeal Montoya argued (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation and (2) he was denied effective assistance because trial counsel failed to call his girlfriend as an alibi witness.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm, considered Montoya’s opposition memorandum, and affirmed the revocation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation	State: Victim’s testimony (entry, restraint, knife to throat, cutting dog’s collar) supports assault with intent and weapon possession.	Montoya: Evidence insufficient to prove violation to the required reasonable certainty.	Court: Evidence viewed favorably to State was sufficient to conclude probation violations occurred; revocation affirmed.
Possession of a deadly weapon in violation of probation	State: Knife use in alleged assault supports finding of weapon possession contrary to probation.	Montoya: Disputes factual basis for weapon possession finding.	Court: Victim’s testimony supported weapon-possession finding; violation proven to reasonable certainty.
Ineffective assistance for failure to call girlfriend as alibi witness	State: Counsel’s witness decisions are tactical; record lacks evidence showing the girlfriend’s testimony would have been exculpatory.	Montoya: Counsel unreasonably failed to call girlfriend who would provide an alibi, violating due process.	Court: Tactical witness decisions not second‑guessed on appeal; no record evidence of prejudice or exculpatory testimony; claim fails on direct appeal.
Proper forum for ineffective-assistance claims when record is undeveloped	State: Where record does not establish a prima facie claim, issue should be raised in collateral habeas proceedings.	Montoya: Seeks relief on direct appeal.	Court: Denied on direct appeal; advised pursuing claim in collateral proceedings if appropriate.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Orquiz, 134 N.M. 157, 74 P.3d 91 (defines abuse-of-discretion review for probation revocation)
State v. Leon, 292 P.3d 493 (State must prove probation violation to a reasonable certainty)
In re Bruno R., 133 N.M. 566, 66 P.3d 339 (review sufficiency of evidence viewing facts in State’s favor)
State v. Sanchez, 130 N.M. 602, 28 P.3d 1143 (probation violation proof standard and weapon-possession findings)
State v. Garcia, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057 (ineffective-assistance claims reviewed de novo)
State v. Reyes, 132 N.M. 576, 52 P.3d 948 (two‑prong Strickland-style test for ineffective assistance)
State v. Trujillo, 289 P.3d 238 (calling witnesses is trial strategy; appellate courts do not second-guess tactical decisions)
State v. Hobbs, 363 P.3d 1259 (no ineffective-assistance showing where record lacks evidence outcome would differ)