State v. Torres
35,180
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Alfonse Torres was charged in 2011 with multiple counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration and third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor; maximum exposure as charged was 162 years.
- In April 2015 Torres entered a plea agreement pleading guilty to one count of first-degree sexual penetration and two counts of third-degree sexual contact with an agreed 18-year total sentence; the district court accepted the plea after a plea colloquy.
- At the presentment hearing and later by motion, Torres sought to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance by prior counsel (28 enumerated deficiencies), including coercion and poor communication.
- Torres’s new counsel requested an evidentiary hearing and offered to supplement the record with affidavits or testimony; the district court denied the request and denied the motion to withdraw the plea.
- The State argued no hearing was required because Torres failed to make a prima facie ineffective-assistance showing and the State had refuted the claims; the State expressly conceded having no information on some key allegations about counsel communication and coercion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that when post-plea allegations create conflicts with the plea record about off-record events (e.g., counsel’s conduct), an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve those factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing on motion to withdraw plea | State: No hearing required because defendant failed to make a prima facie ineffective-assistance showing and State refuted claims | Torres: His post-plea allegations (coercion, poor communication) create conflicts with the record that can only be resolved by live evidence | Reversed: Denial was abuse of discretion; evidentiary hearing required when off-record allegations create unresolved conflicts and State did not conclusively refute them |
| Whether plea voluntariness can be resolved solely by plea colloquy when defendant later alleges off-record coercion | State: Colloquy and judge’s prior observations suffice | Torres: Colloquy insufficient when allegations concern off-record interactions with counsel | Held: Colloquy alone is inadequate where alleged facts conflict with record and concern matters outside judge’s personal knowledge |
| Whether written allegations and counsel argument may substitute for evidence at hearing | State: Arguments and motion suffice to resolve issues | Torres: He should be allowed to present affidavits/testimony | Held: Written allegations and counsel argument are not evidence; defendant must be allowed to present actual evidence |
| Whether claims contradicted by record bar hearing | State: Some claims contradicted, so no hearing needed | Torres: Key claims not contradicted on record and State admitted lack of information | Held: If claims are contradicted by the record hearing may be denied; but where conflicts exist that cannot be resolved from the record, hearing is required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Swim, 1971-NMCA-035 (defendants alleging off-record coercion entitled to evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Reece, 1968-NMSC-080 (post-plea allegations about off-record events that conflict with record require hearing)
- State v. Guerro, 1999-NMCA-026 (denial of hearing permissible where judge’s personal knowledge and record conclusively resolve claims)