State v. Wiggins, 35,766

Defendant was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual penetration and sentenced to four years as a serious violent offender; he appealed denial of a speedy-trial dismissal and challenged evidentiary sufficiency.
Total pretrial delay was 51 months, which the district court and panel described as "extraordinary."
Much of the delay was attributable to actions by Defendant (requests/waivers of continuances, changes of counsel) and several neutral or administrative causes; the State requested only one continuance to accommodate an absent victim.
Defendant was incarcerated only briefly (three months pre-release on bond, one additional month after a later arrest); he did not show oppressive pretrial incarceration or particularized prejudice from the delay.
The appellate court applied Barker balancing, relying on New Mexico precedent distinguishing Serros (where dismissal was warranted) and concluding that only length favored Defendant strongly while other Barker factors tempered that weight.
On sufficiency review, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and held the victim’s testimony provided substantial evidence of lack of consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial violation (Barker factors)	State: delay largely caused or acquiesced in by Defendant; neutral/administrative reasons; no particularized prejudice	51-month delay was extraordinary and should mandate dismissal; Defendant argues State was at least complicit in negligent delay and he shouldn’t have to choose counsel over speed	Affirmed denial of dismissal: length favored Defendant but was tempered by Defendant-caused delays, weak assertion of the right, neutral reasons, lack of oppressive incarceration, and no particularized prejudice
Sufficiency of evidence for sexual penetration conviction	State: victim’s testimony is substantial evidence; conflicts are for the jury	Defendant: conflicts and credibility issues create reasonable doubt; appellate reweighing required	Affirmed conviction: court views evidence favorably to verdict and will not reweigh credibility; evidence legally sufficient

State v. Serros, 366 P.3d 1121 (N.M. 2016) (dismissal upheld where lengthy delay, intentional State-caused postponements, and oppressive pretrial incarceration produced extreme prejudice)
State v. Garza, 212 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2009) (defendant must show particularized prejudice generally; but very long delay plus reasons and assertion of right can obviate need to show prejudice)
State v. Cunningham, 998 P.2d 176 (N.M. 2000) (on sufficiency review, appellate court views evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (appellate courts disregard evidence supporting a different result and defer to jury on credibility)
State v. Salas, 986 P.2d 482 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (fact-finder resolves testimonial conflicts and assesses witness credibility)
State v. Franklin, 428 P.2d 982 (N.M. 1967) (standard cited for sufficiency review arguments)
State v. Boyer, 712 P.2d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985) (authority on appellate review of evidence)
State v. Estrada, 377 P.3d 476 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (defendant-requested continuances can negate speedy-trial claim)
State v. O’Neal, 203 P.3d 135 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (defendant’s acquiescence to delay undermines speedy-trial claim)