prima facie claim in New Mexico

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

2018“The relevant inquiry is whether [the d]efendant’s plea was voluntary and 6 knowing[.]” State v. Paredez, 2004-NMSC-036, ¶ 5 , 136 N.M. 533 , 101 P.3d 799 . 7 “Where, as here, a defendant is represented by an attorney during the plea process and 8 enters a plea upon the advice of that attorney, the voluntariness and intelligence of the 9 defendant’s plea generally depends on whether the attorney rendered ineffective 10 assistance in counseling the plea.” Barnett, 1998-NMCA-105, ¶ 12 . 11 {5} To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the 12 defendant bears the burde

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

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

2017See Crocco, 2014-NMSC-016, ¶ 24 (explaining that the defendant did not establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance based on defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress evidence where the assertion would likely have been groundless as the record did not show any constitutionally-protected privacy interest was violated by the warrantless entry by police). 8 {22} We decline to remand this case for an evidentiary hearing on whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

2017See Crocco , 2014-NMSC-016 , ¶ 24, 327 P.3d 1068 (explaining that the defendant did not establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance based on defense counsel's failure to move to suppress evidence where the assertion would likely have been groundless as the record did not show any constitutionally-protected privacy interest was violated by the warrantless entry by police). {22} We decline to remand this case for an evidentiary hearing on whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

2014This Court will not rule on an inadequately-briefed issue where doing so would require this Court “to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties’ work for them.” Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040 , ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1787 (2014); see id. (“[W]e are not required to do their research. . . .

2014This Court will not rule on an inadequately-briefed issue where doing so would require this Court “to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties’ work for them.” Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040 , ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1787 (2014); see id. (“[W]e are not required to do their research. . . .

2014First, the defendant must establish whether there was 9 a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement. 10 [T]o show a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, 11 a defendant must demonstrate that (1) the group alleged to be excluded 12 is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community, (2) the group’s representation 13 in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in 14 relation to the number of such persons in the community, and (3) this 15 under-representation results from the systematic exclusion of the group 16 in the jury-selection proces

1991Moreover, in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the Supreme Court held that to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive” group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.

2015Hunter, 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

2009See State v. Lopez, 96 N.M. 456, 459 , 631 P.2d 1324, 1327 (Ct.App.1981) (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979)). {14} The distinctive group Defendant alleges to have been excluded from the jury pool is the Hispanic population of Roosevelt County.

2009See State v. Lopez, 96 N.M. 456, 459 , 631 P.2d 1324, 1327 (Ct.App.1981) (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979)). {14} The distinctive group Defendant alleges to have been excluded from the jury pool is the Hispanic population of Roosevelt County.

2018See State v. Rivas, 2017-NMSC-022, ¶ 23 , 398 12 P.3d 299 .

2018See State v. Rivas, 2017-NMSC-022, ¶ 23 , 398 22 1 P.3d 299 .

2015Hunter, 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

2012State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 538-39, 787 P.2d 455 , 457-58 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[Habeas corpus] provides a method for the defendant to present in a post- conviction proceeding a record establishing ineffective assistance of counsel . . . .”). {50} Defendant’s final claim of ineffective assistance is reviewable based upon the trial record, but we disagree that it establishes a prima facie claim.

2012State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 538-39, 787 P.2d 455 , 457-58 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[Habeas corpus] provides a method for the defendant to present in a post-conviction proceeding a record establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. . . .”). {50} D efendant’s final claim of ineffective assistance is reviewable based upon the trial record, but we disagree that it establishes a prima facie claim.

2012State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 538-39, 787 P.2d 455 , 457-58 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[Habeas corpus] provides a method for the defendant to present in a post- conviction proceeding a record establishing ineffective assistance of counsel . . . .”). {50} Defendant’s final claim of ineffective assistance is reviewable based upon the trial record, but we disagree that it establishes a prima facie claim.

2012State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 538-39, 787 P.2d 455 , 457-58 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[Habeas corpus] provides a method for the defendant to present in a post-conviction proceeding a record establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. . . .”). {50} D efendant’s final claim of ineffective assistance is reviewable based upon the trial record, but we disagree that it establishes a prima facie claim.

2011See Muse 5 v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search 6 the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized 7 arguments.”). 8 Additionally, Defendant does not establish how he was prejudiced. 9 Establishing prejudice is a crucial element of a prima facie claim of ineffective 10 assistance of counsel.

2011See Muse 5 v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search 6 the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized 7 arguments.”). 8 Additionally, Defendant does not establish how he was prejudiced. 9 Establishing prejudice is a crucial element of a prima facie claim of ineffective 10 assistance of counsel.

2019State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 .

2019State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 19 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 .

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

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

2010State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 25 , 124 N.M. 333 , 950 11 P.2d 776 (“A record on appeal that provides a basis for remanding to the [district] 12 court for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel is rare. 13 Ordinarily, such claims are heard on petition for writ of habeas corpus.”); see State 14 v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109 , ¶ 25, 122 N.M. 476 , 927 P.2d 31 (stating that “[t]his 15 Court has expressed its preference for habeas corpus proceedings over remand when 16 the record on appeal does not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of 17 counsel”). 18 Defend

2010State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 25 , 124 N.M. 333 , 950 11 P.2d 776 (“A record on appeal that provides a basis for remanding to the [district] 12 court for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel is rare. 13 Ordinarily, such claims are heard on petition for writ of habeas corpus.”); see State 14 v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109 , ¶ 25, 122 N.M. 476 , 927 P.2d 31 (stating that “[t]his 15 Court has expressed its preference for habeas corpus proceedings over remand when 16 the record on appeal does not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of 17 counsel”). 18 Defend

2009State v. Grogan, 2007-NMSC-039, ¶ 11 , 18 142 N.M. 107 , 163 P.3d 494 .

2009State v. Grogan, 2007-NMSC-039, ¶ 11 , 18 142 N.M. 107 , 163 P.3d 494 .

2025It does not follow, however, that the 8 NMCD rule in question properly abides with those legitimate legislative interests. 9 In our adoption of the standard in Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 78 (1987), 10 superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d 287 , 11 295 (5th Cir. 2021), I would hold that, upon a prima facie challenge to a regulation 12 purportedly effectuating a particular statute, the State must show a “valid, rational 13 connection” between the regulation and a legitimate governmental interest of that 14 statute, as evident in the statute’s plain la

2023See generally State v. Miera, 2018-NMCA-020 , ¶ 34, 413 P.3d 491 (“[A] general claim of failure to investigate is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case if there is no evidence in the record indicating what information would have been discovered.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {27} Defendant’s dissatisfaction with counsel’s advice not to testify is similarly incapable of supporting a prima facie claim.

2023See, e.g., State v. Gillihan, 1973-NMSC- 090, ¶ 5, 85 N.M. 514 , 514 P.2d 33 (characterizing trial counsel’s decision not to allow defendant to testify as tactical, and rejecting this as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance).

2023See, e.g., State v. Gillihan, 1973-NMSC- 090, ¶ 5, 85 N.M. 514 , 514 P.2d 33 (characterizing trial counsel’s decision not to allow defendant to testify as tactical, and rejecting this as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance).

2021See Rael, 2007-NMSC-059, ¶ 21 . {26} Without a showing of actual conflict, prejudice is not presumed and Defendant cannot establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2020See State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 25 , 343 P.3d 1245 (stating that when the record does not support a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, the claim is more appropriately pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding).

2018See State v. Rivas, 2017-NMSC-022, ¶ 23 , 398 22 1 P.3d 299 .