habeas claim in New Mexico

2014Defendant may consider raising a habeas claim, for 5 example, because it “is not barred if it is grounded in facts beyond the record 6 previously presented on appeal, and if the additional facts are those which could not, 7 or customarily would not, be developed in a trial on criminal charges.” Campos v. 8 Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 7 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 (internal quotation marks 9 and citation omitted); see Duncan v. Kerby, 1993-NMSC-011 , ¶ 3, 115 N.M. 344 , 851 10 P.2d 466 (“Our habeas corpus cases applying preclusion have not involved instances 11 in which a defendant could not make

2014Defendant may consider raising a habeas claim, for 5 example, because it “is not barred if it is grounded in facts beyond the record 6 previously presented on appeal, and if the additional facts are those which could not, 7 or customarily would not, be developed in a trial on criminal charges.” Campos v. 8 Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 7 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 (internal quotation marks 9 and citation omitted); see Duncan v. Kerby, 1993-NMSC-011 , ¶ 3, 115 N.M. 344 , 851 10 P.2d 466 (“Our habeas corpus cases applying preclusion have not involved instances 11 in which a defendant could not make

2019Cf. State v. Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , ¶ 13, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (“The law has long recognized that it is a violation of due process to prosecute a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial.”). {12} The district court relied entirely on Petitioner’s own testimony at the habeas hearing in determining that he was not competent at trial, which was the impetus for the finding of prejudice.

2019Cf. State v. Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , ¶ 13, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (“The law has long recognized that it is a violation of due process to prosecute a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial.”). {12} The district court relied entirely on Petitioner’s own testimony at the habeas hearing in determining that he was not competent at trial, which was the impetus for the finding of prejudice.

2009To show fundamental error regarding a guilty or no contest plea, “ ‘(1) the error must be clear, and (2) the error must clearly have affected the outcome.’ ” State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA-059, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 61 , 183 P.3d 946 (quoting State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990)).

2009To show fundamental error regarding a guilty or no contest plea, “ ‘(1) the error must be clear, and (2) the error must clearly have affected the outcome.’ ” State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA-059, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 61 , 183 P.3d 946 (quoting State v. Bencomo, 109 N.M. 724, 725 , 790 P.2d 521, 522 (Ct.App.1990)).

2009See State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶10 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (noting that because “the facts underlying Petitioner’s habeas claim were known or knowable to him at the time of his trial, and the record was adequate to address the issue on direct appeal ... review is only for fundamental error”); Campos v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 8 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 (reviewing the defendant’s habeas claim for fundamental error because it was not raised in the defendant’s direct appeal); State v. Dominguez, 2007-NMSC-060, ¶ 14 , 142 N.M. 811 , 171 P.3d 750 (holding that the defendant failed t

2009See State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶10 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (noting that because “the facts underlying Petitioner’s habeas claim were known or knowable to him at the time of his trial, and the record was adequate to address the issue on direct appeal ... review is only for fundamental error”); Campos v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 8 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 (reviewing the defendant’s habeas claim for fundamental error because it was not raised in the defendant’s direct appeal); State v. Dominguez, 2007-NMSC-060, ¶ 14 , 142 N.M. 811 , 171 P.3d 750 (holding that the defendant failed t

2007Thus, the defendant filed his habeas proceeding, arguing that he should be allowed to challenge the validity of his plea under the holding in Bailey because allowing the conviction to stand would mean that the defendant had been “convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal.” Id. at 620, 118 S.Ct. 1604 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} In Bousley, the Government argued that the holding in Bailey should not be applied to the defendant’s habeas claim because the Court held in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) that “new cons

2007Thus, the defendant filed his habeas proceeding, arguing that he should be allowed to challenge the validity of his plea under the holding in Bailey because allowing the conviction to stand would mean that the defendant had been “convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal.” Id. at 620, 118 S.Ct. 1604 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} In Bousley, the Government argued that the holding in Bailey should not be applied to the defendant’s habeas claim because the Court held in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) that “new cons

2007Thus, the defendant filed his habeas proceeding, arguing that he should be allowed to challenge the validity of his plea under the holding in Bailey because allowing the conviction to stand would mean that the defendant had been “convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal.” Id. at 620, 118 S.Ct. 1604 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} In Bousley, the Government argued that the holding in Bailey should not be applied to the defendant’s habeas claim because the Court held in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) that “new cons

2007Thus, the defendant filed his habeas proceeding, arguing that he should be allowed to challenge the validity of his plea under the holding in Bailey because allowing the conviction to stand would mean that the defendant had been “convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal.” Id. at 620, 118 S.Ct. 1604 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} In Bousley, the Government argued that the holding in Bailey should not be applied to the defendant’s habeas claim because the Court held in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) that “new cons