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.
12 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2019State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC- 050, ¶ 32, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 692 ); see Patterson v. LeMaster, 2001-NMSC-013, ¶ 1 , 130 N.M. 179 , 21 P.3d 1032 (stating that a prima facie claim is established by showing that counsel’s performance fell below the performance of a reasonably competent attorney and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced defendant). {22} As to the prejudice prong of the analysis, a defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have b 2001See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (providing that the prejudice prong of a claim of ineffective assistance “requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable”). 2. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Carlosgreen2 sentences2017See Carlos, 16 2006-NMCA-141, ¶ 10 (requiring that a defendant show both that his attorney’s 17 performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense 18 such that, but for the attorney’s performance, there is a reasonable probability that the 19 defendant would have chosen to go to trial rather than enter a plea). 2011Thus, under the requirements of Paredez, 14 Defendant’s trial counsel was required to advise him of the consequence that his guilty 15 plea would result in his virtually certain deportation. 2004-NMSC-036 , ¶ 19 16 (“[C]riminal defense attorneys are obligated to determine the immigration status of 17 their clients[] [and i]f a client is a non-citizen, the attorney must advise that client of 18 the specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, including whether 6 1 deportation would be virtually certain”); State v. Carlos, 2006-NMCA-141, ¶ 14 , 140 2 N.M. 688 , 147 P.3d 897 (same). 3 De | 1 | 2 |
Patterson v. LeMastergreen2 sentences2019State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC- 050, ¶ 32, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 692 ); see Patterson v. LeMaster, 2001-NMSC-013, ¶ 1 , 130 N.M. 179 , 21 P.3d 1032 (stating that a prima facie claim is established by showing that counsel’s performance fell below the performance of a reasonably competent attorney and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced defendant). {22} As to the prejudice prong of the analysis, a defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have b 2019State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC- 050, ¶ 32, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 692 ); see Patterson v. LeMaster, 2001-NMSC-013, ¶ 1 , 130 N.M. 179 , 21 P.3d 1032 (stating that a prima facie claim is established by showing that counsel’s performance fell below the performance of a reasonably competent attorney and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced defendant). {22} As to the prejudice prong of the analysis, a defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have b | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Kerbygreen2 sentences2011Duncan v. Kerby, 115 N.M. 344, 347-48 , 851 P.2d 466, 469-70 (1993). {34} In these proceedings, we conclude that trial counsels’ performance was not deficient and we need not reach the prejudice prong of the inquiry. 2011Duncan v. Kerby, 115 N.M. 344, 347-48 , 851 P.2d 466, 469-70 (1993). {34} In these proceedings, we conclude that trial counsels’ performance was not deficient and we need not reach the prejudice prong of the inquiry. | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See id. at 365 , 805 P.2d at 632 . 16 Moreover, Defendant presented no evidence to show that the State intentionally 17 delayed bringing him to trial in order to gain a tactical advantage. 2009See id. at 365 , 805 P.2d at 632 . 16 Moreover, Defendant presented no evidence to show that the State intentionally 17 delayed bringing him to trial in order to gain a tactical advantage. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kilpatrickgreen2 sentences1991See, e.g., State v. Kilpatrick, 104 N.M. 441 , 722 P.2d 692 (Ct.App.1986) (defendant who suffered restrictions on his liberty and was impaired in his defense by loss of a witness satisfied the prejudice prong of the test for speedy trial violation). 1991See, e.g., State v. Kilpatrick, 104 N.M. 441 , 722 P.2d 692 (Ct.App.1986) (defendant who suffered restrictions on his liberty and was impaired in his defense by loss of a witness satisfied the prejudice prong of the test for speedy trial violation). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lujangreen2 sentences1991See also State v. Lujan, 112 N.M. 346 , 815 P.2d 642 (Ct.App.1991). 1991See also State v. Lujan, 112 N.M. 346 , 815 P.2d 642 (Ct.App.1991). | 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. Bernal
green
2 sentences2025As to the prejudice prong of the analysis, the defendant must establish “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s . . . errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 32 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {6} We begin with Defendant’s confrontation argument. 2025As to the prejudice prong of the analysis, the defendant must establish “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s . . . errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 32 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {6} We begin with Defendant’s confrontation argument. | 2 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences2019State v. Jacobs, 2000-NMSC- 026, ¶ 49, 129 N.M. 448 , 10 P.3d 127 . {23} Defendant asserts that had counsel timely filed the notice of witnesses, the jurors would have heard testimony that Victim had a bias, and motive to fabricate the story. 2019State v. Jacobs, 2000-NMSC- 026, ¶ 49, 129 N.M. 448 , 10 P.3d 127 . {23} Defendant asserts that had counsel timely filed the notice of witnesses, the jurors would have heard testimony that Victim had a bias, and motive to fabricate the story. | 2 | 2001–2019 |
Seipert v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2017We noted in our calendar notice that the district court determined 16 that Plaintiffs in this case were prejudiced, based on its finding that “trial preparations 17 [were] well under way” as a result of Plaintiffs’ reliance on Hooten’s “objective 18 manifestation of an intent to litigate rather than arbitrate[.]” [15 RP 3435; CN 12] We 19 further observed that Hooten—in his docketing statement—did not specifically 20 challenge the district court’s finding of prejudice. [CN 12] We suggested, based upon 11 1 the district court’s unchallenged finding that Plaintiffs were engaged in trial 2 prepar 2017We noted in our calendar notice that the district court determined 16 that Plaintiffs in this case were prejudiced, based on its finding that “trial preparations 17 [were] well under way” as a result of Plaintiffs’ reliance on Hooten’s “objective 18 manifestation of an intent to litigate rather than arbitrate[.]” [15 RP 3435; CN 12] We 19 further observed that Hooten—in his docketing statement—did not specifically 20 challenge the district court’s finding of prejudice. [CN 12] We suggested, based upon 11 1 the district court’s unchallenged finding that Plaintiffs were engaged in trial 2 prepar | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Garza
green
1 sentence2014Garza, 2009-NMSC-038 ,¶ 13 12 (“Violation of the speedy trial right is only determined through a review of the 13 circumstances of a case, which may not be divorced from a consideration of the [s]tate 14 and the defendant’s conduct and the harm to the defendant from the delay.”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Carlos
green
1 sentence2011Thus, under the requirements of Paredez, 14 Defendant’s trial counsel was required to advise him of the consequence that his guilty 15 plea would result in his virtually certain deportation. 2004-NMSC-036 , ¶ 19 16 (“[C]riminal defense attorneys are obligated to determine the immigration status of 17 their clients[] [and i]f a client is a non-citizen, the attorney must advise that client of 18 the specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, including whether 6 1 deportation would be virtually certain”); State v. Carlos, 2006-NMCA-141, ¶ 14 , 140 2 N.M. 688 , 147 P.3d 897 (same). 3 De | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Paredez
green
1 sentence2011Thus, under the requirements of Paredez, 14 Defendant’s trial counsel was required to advise him of the consequence that his guilty 15 plea would result in his virtually certain deportation. 2004-NMSC-036 , ¶ 19 16 (“[C]riminal defense attorneys are obligated to determine the immigration status of 17 their clients[] [and i]f a client is a non-citizen, the attorney must advise that client of 18 the specific immigration consequences of pleading guilty, including whether 6 1 deportation would be virtually certain”); State v. Carlos, 2006-NMCA-141, ¶ 14 , 140 2 N.M. 688 , 147 P.3d 897 (same). 3 De | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Brazeal
green
1 sentence2001The majority then states, "A defendant who was convicted on a plea is not required to prove that the result at trial would have been acquittal." Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Zurla v. State
green
1 sentence1991For example, as recognized in Zurla, early and frequent assertions of the right are indicative of the probable extent to which the defendant’s constitutionally protected interests have suffered because of the delay, even in the absence of independent corroborating evidence of such prejudice. 109 N.M. at 644, 789 P.2d at 592 . 7 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.