State v. Trammell, 387 P.3d 220

In 2004 Trammell pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included false imprisonment of a minor; counsel did not advise him that the offense triggered SORNA sex-offender registration.
The district court’s judgment form had a checkbox for sex-offender registration that was left unchecked; Trammell was nevertheless told by a case worker before release that he had to register and complied to secure release.
In 2009 Trammell violated probation (dating a woman with a minor child) and the State sought to revoke probation and impose four habitual-offender years previously waived.
Trammell moved to withdraw his plea (2010), arguing ineffective assistance because counsel failed to advise of SORNA consequences; he relied on the Court of Appeals decision in Edwards.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding Edwards applied retroactively and counsel’s omission was per se deficient and prejudicial; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed counsel’s failure to advise of SORNA registration was per se deficient (Edwards applies retroactively) but held Trammell failed to show Strickland prejudice, so the motion to withdraw was properly denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Edwards (attorney duty to advise of SORNA) applies retroactively	State: Edwards announced a new rule and should not apply to 2004 plea	Trammell: Edwards follows preexisting law and professional norms; applies retroactively	Edwards did not announce a new rule; duty existed pre-2004, so Edwards applies retroactively
Whether counsel’s failure to advise of SORNA registration is deficient performance under Strickland prong one	State: No deficiency if rule did not exist at plea time	Trammell: Failure to advise is per se deficient	Court: Failure to advise is per se deficient under Strickland prong one
Whether Trammell was prejudiced under Strickland prong two (would have rejected plea)	State: Trammell cannot show reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea	Trammell: Would have rejected plea or negotiated a different plea if informed	Court: No sufficient evidence of prejudice; self‑serving testimony and delay in challenging weaken claim
Appropriate remedy (withdraw plea)	State: Deny withdrawal because no prejudice shown	Trammell: Allow withdrawal because counsel ineffective and prejudiced him	Held: Deny withdrawal; remand to reenter district court order denying motion

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Edwards, 157 P.3d 56 (N.M. Ct. App.) (failure to advise of SORNA consequences constitutes deficient performance)
State v. Paredez, 101 P.3d 799 (N.M. 2004) (failure to advise of immigration consequences is per se deficient)
Ramirez v. State (Ramirez II), 333 P.3d 240 (N.M. 2014) (retroactive application of Paredez; forms and rules predated ruling)
Patterson v. LeMaster, 21 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2001) (standard for Strickland prejudice in plea context)
Garcia v. State, 237 P.3d 716 (N.M. 2010) (prejudice may be shown where counsel’s errors foreclose competent plea negotiation)