Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
27 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arrendondogreen2 sentences2025See State v. Arrendondo, 2012- NMSC-013, ¶ 38, 278 P.3d 517 (“The record is frequently insufficient to establish whether an action taken by defense counsel was reasonable or if it caused prejudice. 2024State v. Arrendondo, 2012-NMSC-013, ¶ 38 , 278 P.3d 517 (“The record [on appeal] is frequently insufficient to establish whether an action taken by defense counsel was reasonable or if it caused prejudice.”). | 15 | 24 |
State v. Huntergreen2 sentences2015Hunter, 2006-NMSC-043, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Arrendondo, 2012-NMSC-013, ¶ 38-39 (noting that the record is “frequently insufficient to establish whether an action taken by defense counsel was reasonable” and refusing to speculate, for example, as to why a defense counsel delayed in learning of a piece of evidence, so as to conclude that the defendant had failed to make a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). 2015Hunter, 2 2006-NMSC-043, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 3 Arrendondo, 2012-NMSC-013, ¶ 38-39 (noting that the record is “frequently 4 insufficient to establish whether an action taken by defense counsel was reasonable” 5 and refusing to speculate, for example, as to why a defense counsel delayed in 6 learning of a piece of evidence, so as to conclude that the defendant had failed to 7 make a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). 8 {21} Even assuming that defense counsel’s performance was deficient, Defendant 9 has not established that he was p | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bernalgreen1 sentence2024“If facts necessary to a full determination are not part of the record, an ineffective assistance claim is more properly brought through a habeas corpus petition.” Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 ; see Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 33 (stating that in instances where the record on appeal is deficient to determine a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is our Supreme Court’s preference that such claims be brought through habeas corpus proceedings). {6} Defendant’s arguments are premised on two general complaints: (1) Defendant had to tell trial counsel to make objections and cross-examine witn | 1 | 1 |
State v. Astorgagreen1 sentence2019See State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶¶ 17, 20 , 343 P.3d 1245 (noting that the record is “frequently insufficient to establish whether an action taken by defense counsel was reasonable and refusing to speculate” as to the interpretation of defense counsel’s ambiguous statement regarding his failure to litigate a 10-8 call (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {48} During trial Agent Salcido testified that he and Sergeant Martinez knocked on Defendant’s front door while wearing plain clothes and not displaying their weapons. | 1 | 1 |
KALB Et Ux. v. FEUERSTEIN Et Ux.green1 sentence1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg | 1 | 1 |
Pettibone Corp. v. Baker (In Re Pettibone Corp.)green1 sentence1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg | 1 | 1 |
Borg-Warner Acceptance Corporation v. Alvin Dewayne Hall and Beverly Jane Hall, A/K/A Beverly Jane Cantingreen1 sentence1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg | 1 | 1 |
In Re Advent Corp.green1 sentence1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Estate of Barefootgreen1 sentence1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg | 1 | 1 |
Kalb v. Feuersteingreen2 sentences1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg 1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Roybal
green
2 sentences2023“When an ineffective assistance claim is first raised on direct appeal, we evaluate the facts that are part of the record.” State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 . {12} Because the record is frequently insufficient to establish whether an action taken by defense counsel was not reasonable or if an error caused prejudice, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are often better addressed in habeas corpus proceedings. 2023“When an ineffective assistance claim is first raised on direct appeal, we evaluate the facts that are part of the record.” State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 . {12} Because the record is frequently insufficient to establish whether an action taken by defense counsel was not reasonable or if an error caused prejudice, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are often better addressed in habeas corpus proceedings. | 6 | 2013–2024 |
In Re Shamblin
green
1 sentence1991See, e.g., Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 443 , 60 S.Ct. 343, 348 , 84 L.Ed. 370 (1940) (because of bankruptcy stay, state court was deprived of power to proceed and, therefore, its actions were without authority of law); In re Shamblin, 890 F.2d 123 , 125 (9th Cir.1989) (judicial proceedings violating stay are void); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Hall, 685 F.2d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir.1982) (“Actions taken in violation of automatic stay are void and without effect.”); In re Advent Corp., 24 B.R. 612, 614 (Bkrtcy.App. 1st Cir.1982) (acts done in violation of automatic stay void ab initio reg | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.