State v. Trammell, 336 P.3d 977

Defendant (Trammell) pled guilty in 2004 to multiple felonies arising from stealing a pickup; because a child was in the truck, two pleas included negligent child abuse and false imprisonment of a minor.
At the time of the plea, neither defense counsel, the prosecutor, nor the trial court informed Trammell that the false-imprisonment conviction would require registration under New Mexico’s SORNA; the judgment form’s SORNA box was unchecked.
Trammell served his prison term, was released to probation/parole, was told six months before release that SORNA registration applied, and thereafter registered and was placed in sex-offender supervision with special conditions.
After release, parole and probation violations arose (including an alleged assault on a minor and a behavioral-condition violation); the State later sought habitual-offender enhancements under the plea agreement.
Trammell moved to withdraw his plea, arguing counsel’s failure to advise him of almost-certain SORNA registration was ineffective assistance under State v. Edwards; the district court denied relief and imposed enhancements; Trammell appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Edwards (duty to advise of SORNA registration) applies retroactively	State: Edwards announced a new rule and should not apply retroactively to 2004 plea	Trammell: Edwards is not a new rule and should apply retroactively; counsel had duty to advise	Court: Edwards is not a new procedural rule and applies retroactively
Whether counsel’s failure to advise about SORNA registration was deficient performance	State: Counsel’s omission was not prejudicial or did not constitute ineffective assistance	Trammell: Counsel had affirmative duty to advise and failed to do so	Court: Counsel’s performance was deficient under Edwards
Whether Trammell demonstrated prejudice from deficient performance	State: Trammell failed to prove he would have rejected the plea if informed	Trammell: He testified he would have fought the charge or pled to a non-sex offense; SORNA is a harsh collateral consequence	Court: Prejudice shown — SORNA registration sufficiently undermined plea fairness
Remedy — whether plea should be vacated and case remanded	State: (implicit) deny withdrawal given timing and served sentence	Trammell: Withdraw plea and proceed to resolve charges anew	Court: Reverse district court, permit withdrawal of plea, remand for further proceedings

State v. Edwards, 141 N.M. 491, 157 P.3d 56 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (counsel has affirmative duty to advise defendants that a sex-offense plea will almost certainly trigger SORNA registration)
State v. Paredez, 136 N.M. 533, 101 P.3d 799 (N.M. 2004) (due-process/plea-advice requirements and counsel’s duty regarding immigration consequences)
State v. Moore, 135 N.M. 210, 86 P.3d 635 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (pre-plea knowledge of SORNA consequences is part of proper plea procedure)
State v. Ramirez, 278 P.3d 569 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (Paredez applied retroactively; precedent and professional norms inform retroactivity analysis)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (framework for deciding retroactivity of new rules)