green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
22.0 score
“provides a method for the defendant to present in a post- conviction proceeding a record establishing ineffective assistance of counsel . . . .”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Bahney
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
provides a method for the defendant to present in a post-conviction proceeding a record establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Bahney
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
provides a method for the defendant to present in a post- conviction proceeding a record establishing ineffective assistance of counsel . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Moore
a trial counsel is not incompetent for failing to make a motion 11 when the record does not support the motion.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Miller
a trial counsel is not incompetent for 14 failing to make a motion when the record does not support the motion.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Clark
See State v. Stenz, 1990-NMCA-005 , ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (“A trial counsel is not incompetent for failing to make a motion when the record does not support the motion.”). {7} Defendant contends that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress the out-of-court identification made by an eyewitness. [MIO 11] This failure, Defendant alleges, amounts to a deprivation of Defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. [MIO 15] The New Mexico Supreme Court has recently clarified the procedure to be followed in determin…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Johnson
See State v. Stenz, 1990-NMCA-005 , ¶ 7, 12 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (stating that trial counsel is not ineffective for the failure 13 to make a motion that is not supported by the record).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Flores
See State v. Stenz, 1990-NMCA- 14 005, ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Solomon
See State v. Stenz, 1990–NMCA–005, 5 ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (“A trial counsel is not incompetent for failing to 6 make a motion when the record does not support the motion.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Crocco
See State v. Stenz, 1990-NMCA-005 , ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (“A trial counsel is not incompetent for failing to make a motion when the record does not support the motion.”). {16} In order to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his warrantless arrest in another person’s house, Defendant must show he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Crocco
See State v. Stenz, 1990-NMCA-005 , ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (“A trial counsel is not incompetent for failing to make a motion when the record does not support the motion.”). {16} In order to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his warrantless arrest in another person’s house, Defendant must show he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lyster
(2×)
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 538, 14 787 P.2d 455 , 457 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding that trial counsel is not ineffective for 15 failure to make a motion that is not supported by the record); Lytle v. Jordan, 16 2001-NMSC-016, ¶ 43 , 130 N.M. 198 , 22 P.3d 666 (“On appeal, we will not second 17 guess the trial strategy and tactics of the defense counsel.” (internal quotation marks 18 and citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wiggins
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536, 538 , 787 P.2d 455, 457 (Ct. App. 7 1990) (holding that trial counsel is not ineffective for failure to make a motion that is 8 not supported by the record).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wiggins
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536, 538 , 787 P.2d 455, 457 (Ct. App. 18 1990) (holding that trial counsel is not ineffective for failure to make a motion that is 19 not supported by the record).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wolf
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 538, 787 11 P.2d 455 , 457 (Ct. App. 1990) (counsel is not ineffective for failing to make a motion 12 that is not supported by the record); see also State v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109 , ¶ 13 25, 122 N.M. 476 , 927 P.2d 31 (expressing a preference for habeas corpus 14 proceedings over remand when the record on appeal does not establish a prima facie 15 case).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. S Johnson
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 4 537, 787 P.2d 455 , 456 (Ct. App. 1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Santillanes
(2×)
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536, 538 , 787 P.2d 455, 457 (Ct.App.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cooper
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536, 538 , 787 P.2d 455, 457 (Ct.App.1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of Ernesto M., Jr.
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536, 538 , 787 P.2d 455, 457 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 562 , 787 P.2d 842 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Montano
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536, 538 , 787 P.2d 455, 457 (Ct.App.) (counsel is not ineffective for faffing to make a motion that is not supported by the record), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 562 , 787 P.2d 842 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Chandler
See Stenz, 109 N.M. at 537-38 , 787 P.2d at 456-57 (not ineffective assistance in failing to challenge warrantless search that was justified by exigent circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Richardson
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536, 538 , 787 P.2d 455, 457 (Ct.App.) (failure to move for suppression did not constitute ineffectiveness where admission justified), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 562 , 787 P.2d 842 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Highfield
See State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (Ct.App.1990) (counsel is not ineffective for failing to make a motion for which there is no legal or factual basis).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rubio
See generally State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (Ct.App.1990); State v. Tsethlikai, 109 N.M. 371 , 785 P.2d 282 (Ct.App.1989); State v. Crislip, 109 N.M. 351, 358 , 785 P.2d 262, 269 (Ct.App.1989) (Hartz, J., specially concurring) (indicating when and how defendants alleging ineffective assistance need to make a record in the trial court before the claim can be reviewed on appeal).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Herrera
See id.; see also State v. Stenz, 1990-NMCA- 005, ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (stating that trial counsel is not ineffective for the failure to make a motion that is not supported by the record).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
State v. Martinez, 1996-NMCA-109 , ¶ 36, 122 N.M. 476 , 927 P.2d 31 ; see also State v. Stenz, 1990-NMCA-005 , ¶ 7, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (“Trial counsel is not incompetent for failing to make a motion when the record does not support the motion.”). {22} We conclude Defendant has not met his burden to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lara
See also State v. Stentz, 109 N.M. 536 , 787 P.2d 455 (Ct.App.1990).
Mike C. MOLINAR
v.
STATE of New Mexico
v.
STATE of New Mexico
No. 18989.
New Mexico Supreme Court.
Feb 27, 1990.
Jacquelyn Robins, Chief Public Defender, Peter Rames, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for petitioner., Hal Stratton, Atty. Gen., Gail MacQuesten, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent.
Baca.
Published
Citer courts: New Mexico Court of Appeals (4) · New Mexico Supreme Court (1)
OPINION
Petitioner, Mike C. Molinar, has petitioned us for a writ of certiorari, seeking reversal of his conviction in State v. Molinar, Ct.App. No. 10, 982, November 11, 1989, Apodaca, J., dissenting. We granted his petition, and have issued the writ. Upon review of the case, we find that Molinar was a co-defendant with Terry Callaway in the latter's trial. See State v. Callaway, Ct.App. No. 10,966, November 7, 1989, Apodaca, J., dissenting, reversed, Callaway v. State, 109 N.M. 416, 785 P.2d 1035 (1990), Baca, J., dissenting. As in Callaway, petitioner objected to the trial court’s sua sponte order of mistrial. We thus conclude that petitioner's second trial was constitutionally invalid, for the same reasons we gave in Callaway.
Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals in No. 10,982, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to discharge petitioner from custody.
IT IS SO ORDERED.