State v. Turner, 2017 NMCA 47

Background

Turner was indicted on 211 counts including securities fraud; he pleaded guilty to 13 counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy pursuant to a plea agreement that tied sentencing exposure to pre‑sentencing payment of restitution.
The plea colloquy reflected that Turner understood the agreement, his exposure, and that no one threatened or promised him anything to plead guilty; the court accepted the plea.
Turner was released pending a restitution hearing so he could arrange payment; multiple continuances and public defender staffing changes followed; counsel raised inability-to-represent concerns after the plea.
Turner later moved to withdraw his plea, alleging it was involuntary because (a) jail conditions (including alleged unsanitary conditions and denial of medical care) coerced the plea, and (b) he received ineffective assistance of counsel arising from public defender caseload and specific alleged deficiencies. He also sought continuances of restitution and sentencing.
The district court denied withdrawal, finding the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligently made, and that counsel provided effective assistance; the court vacated the restitution hearing until probation but proceeded to sentence Turner after he failed to pay restitution pre‑sentence.
On appeal Turner argued (1) the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow plea withdrawal (coercion and ineffective assistance), and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying continuances and sentencing him; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying motion to withdraw guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel	State: Record does not show counsel was deficient at plea stage; voluntariness of plea bars most nonjurisdictional claims	Turner: Public defender caseload and counsel failures (investigation, expert, double jeopardy, bargaining) rendered plea involuntary and prejudiced him	Denial affirmed; Turner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; many alleged failures occurred or were articulated after the plea and are speculative
Whether plea was coerced by pretrial conditions (bail, jail conditions, institutional problems)	State: Plea colloquy and facts show plea was bargained-for and voluntary; bail and jail complaints were known but not shown to have induced the plea	Turner: High cash bond, unsanitary/dangerous jail conditions (MRSA), and institutional ineffectiveness coerced him into pleading to get out	Denial affirmed; court found no evidence jail conditions induced plea—colloquy responses and timing undercut coercion claim
Whether denial of continuances for restitution and sentencing constituted abuse of discretion	State: Court granted multiple continuances; Turner never sought a continuance of sentencing and failed to preserve the claim	Turner: Denials prevented effective assistance and presentation of evidence; court improperly blamed him for counsel’s delays	Affirmed; court reasonably managed repeated continuances, Turner made no restitution payments, and any sentencing‑continuance claim was unpreserved/fails under fundamental‑error review
Whether Turner was prejudiced by proceeding to sentence without a pre‑sentence restitution determination	State: Turner had opportunity and time to pay; failure to pay justified sentencing under plea terms	Turner: Sentencing without final restitution prejudiced him because sentencing exposure depended on pre‑sentence payment	Held: No prejudicial error; Turner made no payments though given time and specific suggestion ($50,000) and plea terms allowed court to proceed (Bowie precedent)

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applicability of Strickland prejudice inquiry to guilty pleas)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (guilty plea involuntary if induced by threats or coercion)
State v. Hunter, 140 N.M. 406 (N.M. 2006) (applies Strickland in New Mexico; voluntariness and counsel performance standards)
State v. Bowie, 110 N.M. 283 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (upholding sentence after continuances and defendant’s failure to make restitution pre‑sentence)
State v. Barnett, 125 N.M. 739 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of plea withdrawal)
State v. Garcia, 121 N.M. 544 (N.M. 1996) (manifest error standard when plea not knowingly and voluntarily given)
State v. Byrd, 79 N.M. 13 (N.M. 1968) (responses at plea colloquy weigh heavily on voluntariness)