State v. Salas, 35,328

Defendant Lorenzo Arturo Salas was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and tampering with evidence for an incident on November 14, 2014, shown by eyewitness testimony and surveillance video.
Trial evidence included eyewitness Jennifer Romero’s account that Salas assaulted and repeatedly stabbed the victim with a steak knife; the jury saw surveillance footage and a knife handle as physical evidence.
Defendant challenged multiple trial aspects on appeal: ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutionality of the tampering statute as applied (Fifth Amendment), sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder, sufficiency of proof of three prior felonies for habitual-offender enhancement, speedy-trial delay, and authentication of the videotape.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and a motion to amend the docketing statement; the court considered and rejected those arguments.
The court affirmed: no prima facie ineffective-assistance claim on the record; Fifth Amendment not implicated by physical evidence; eyewitness and video provided sufficient evidence of attempt; record deficiencies prevented review of habitual-offender proof; speedy-trial and videotape-authentication claims were not viable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel	State: Record does not show an actual conflict or deficient performance	Salas: Counsel was conflicted after he filed a disciplinary complaint, failed to investigate, file motions, contact him, and notify re: habitual-offender hearing	Denied — no prima facie showing on the record; conflict not established; tactical choices upheld; remedy is habeas if evidence outside record exists
Tampering statute & Fifth Amendment	State: Tampering prosecution involves physical evidence, not testimonial compulsion	Salas: Prosecution compelled him to produce incriminating evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment	Denied — Fifth Amendment privilege does not protect physical evidence such as the knife handle
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder	State: Eyewitness testimony and surveillance video show intent and overt acts toward deliberate killing	Salas: Conviction improper because victim did not testify	Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, eyewitness and video provide substantial evidence of intent and substantial step
Proof of prior felonies for habitual enhancement	State: Submitted certified judgment, booking document with photo/SSN/DOB, and plea disposition	Salas: Identity proof for a prior conviction was insufficient	Affirmed — appellate record lacks those documents for review; without record appellant fails to show error, so trial proceedings presumed correct

State v. Joanna V., 94 P.3d 783 (2004) (right to effective assistance of counsel free from conflicts)
Churchman v. Dorsey, 919 P.2d 1076 (1996) (defendant must show an actual conflict affecting performance)
State v. Bernard, 355 P.3d 831 (2015) (ineffective assistance claims reviewed de novo)
State v. Kent, 145 P.3d 86 (2006) (substantial-evidence standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Trujillo, 289 P.3d 238 (2012) (calling witnesses is trial strategy within counsel’s control)