State v. Turner, 34,792

Background

Turner was indicted on numerous counts (including securities fraud and conspiracy) and initially held on a $250,000 cash-only bond after the court found a flight risk and substantial alleged transfers.
After multiple counsel changes, Turner pleaded guilty to 13 counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy under a plea agreement that tied sentencing exposure to whether he paid court-ordered restitution before sentencing (full payment = sentencing cap of 20 years; failure to pay = 5–30 years).
The plea colloquy reflected that Turner understood the deal, denied threats or promises, and acknowledged waiving defenses and appeal rights; the court accepted the plea as voluntary.
Multiple continuances of the restitution hearing occurred amid public‑defender caseload disputes and counsel turnover; Turner later moved to withdraw his plea alleging ineffective assistance and that intolerable jail conditions and the bail setting coerced his plea.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw, found counsel effective as to the plea phase, concluded jail conditions did not render the plea involuntary, vacated pre‑sentencing restitution determinations, and proceeded to sentence Turner to ten years (less credit), plus parole/probation; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Turner’s Argument	Held
Whether Turner may withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s plea‑phase performance was reasonable; alleged deficiencies occurred after plea or are speculative; Turner waived nonjurisdictional claims by pleading guilty	Counsel was overloaded, did insufficient investigation (forensic accountant, double jeopardy, defenses), and negotiated the plea without adequate preparation, so plea was unknowing/unintelligent	Denied — record does not show deficient performance at plea or prejudice sufficient under Strickland; many claims speculative and better suited to habeas if supported by extra-record evidence
Whether the plea was coerced by bail, jail conditions (LCDC), or public‑defender institutional failures	Plea colloquy shows Turner denied threats/promises; plea was bargained for dismissal of many counts; no evidence he pleaded to escape jail conditions	Bail was set as de facto security for restitution; unsanitary/medical conditions at LCDC and counsel shortages coerced Turner to plead to obtain release	Denied — court found plea voluntary; bail decision was within Rule 5‑401 discretion; no evidence Turner entered plea to escape intolerable conditions; counsel workload did not show coercion at plea time
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying continuances of restitution/sentencing	Court granted multiple continuances; restitution hearings delayed repeatedly at defense and State requests; Turner made no pre‑sentencing restitution payments, so sentencing could proceed per plea terms	New counsel needed reasonable time to prepare; continuances were warranted to allow constitutionally effective representation and accurate restitution determination	Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; Turner failed to make any restitution payments despite extensions; Turner did not preserve a sentencing‑continuance objection and, even reviewed for fundamental error, no miscarriage of justice shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. Barnett, 125 N.M. 739, 965 P.2d 323 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (appellate review of denial to set aside plea is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Garcia, 121 N.M. 544, 915 P.2d 300 (N.M. 1996) (plea not voluntary when undisputed facts show it was not knowingly and voluntarily given)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Hunter, 140 N.M. 406, 143 P.3d 168 (N.M. 2006) (applies Strickland to plea context and discusses strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (plea invalid if induced by threats or improper promises)
State v. Byrd, 79 N.M. 13, 439 P.2d 230 (N.M. 1968) (defendant bears burden to prove plea coerced; defendant’s colloquy responses persuasive of voluntariness)
State v. Bowie, 110 N.M. 283, 795 P.2d 88 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (court may proceed to sentence after continuances when defendant fails to make restitution provided for by plea agreement)