State v. Henderson ( 2023 )

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the
Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is
assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule
23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain
deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 Filing Date: July 6, 2023
3 No. S-1-SC-39217
4 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
5 Plaintiff-Appellant,
6 v.
7 LEISHA HENDERSON,
8 Defendant-Appellee.
9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
10 Britt M. Baca-Miller, District Judge
11 Hector H. Baldereas, Attorney General
12 Meryl Francolini, Assistant Attorney General
13 Santa Fe, NM
14 for Appellant
15 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
16 Kimberly Chavez Cook, Appellate Defender
17 MJ Edge, Assistant Appellate Defender
18 Santa Fe, NM
19 for Appellee
20 DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REVERSAL
21 PER CURIAM.
1 {1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court upon the State’s appeal of the
2 district court’s partial grant of Defendant’s amended petition for writ of habeas
3 corpus, see Rule 5-802(N)(1) NMRA (“[I]f the writ [of habeas corpus] is granted,
4 the state may appeal as of right under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.”);
5 {2} WHEREAS, Defendant was indicted by a grand jury on charges of first degree
6 child abuse (causing great bodily harm) contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-6-1(D),
7 (E) (2009), first degree kidnapping (inflicting physical injury) contrary to NMSA
8 1978, Section 30-4-1(2003), aggravated battery contrary to NMSA 1978, Section
9 30-3-5(A), (C) (1969), and aggravated assault contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-
10 3-2(A) (1963), arising from an attack on her eight-year-old son;
11 {3} WHEREAS, Defendant entered into a plea and disposition agreement in
12 which she agreed to plead no contest to (1) second degree kidnapping, (2) third
13 degree intentional child abuse (not resulting in death or great bodily harm), and (3)
14 second degree attempt to commit intentional child abuse (resulting in great bodily
15 harm);
16 {4} WHEREAS, Defendant was sentenced to a term of twenty-one years, of which
17 nine years were suspended;
18 {5} WHEREAS, Defendant subsequently filed an amended petition for writ of
19 habeas corpus asserting as grounds for relief, (1) “[i]neffective assistance of
2
1 counsel,” (2) “[i]nsufficiency of the evidence to support the plea agreement and
2 resulting sentence, where the charge of kidnapping was based on incidental restraint
3 . . . in violation of the holding of State v. Trujillo, 2012-NMCA-112, 289 P.3d 238,”
4 or in the alternative, violation of the prohibition on double jeopardy arising from the
5 kidnapping and child abuse convictions, and (3) “[r]acial disproportionality in the
6 grand jury proceedings”;
7 {6} WHEREAS, the district court ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held on
8 Defendant’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus;
9 {7} WHEREAS, the district court limited the evidentiary hearing to submissions
10 on the issue of whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel as a
11 result of trial counsel’s decision to pursue an involuntary intoxication defense and/or
12 trial counsel’s failure to contest specific intent with respect to the charge of
13 intentional child abuse;
14 {8} WHEREAS, the district court partially granted Defendant’s amended petition
15 for writ of habeas corpus on the alternative ground that “trial counsel provided
16 deficient performance in failing to challenge the kidnapping charge [pursuant to
17 State v. Trujillo, 2012-NMCA-112] and in advising [Defendant] to plea[d] to [the]
18 charge”;
19 {9} WHEREAS, to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim arising
3
1 upon a plea agreement, Defendant must demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance
2 was deficient and that defendant suffered prejudice as a result of trial counsel’s
3 deficient performance, see State v. Hunter, 2006-NMSC-043, ¶ 12, 140 N.M. 406,
4 143 P.3d 168;
5 {10} WHEREAS, to establish deficient performance arising from trial counsel’s
6 failure to challenge the charge of kidnapping pursuant to State v. Trujillo, 2012-
7 NMCA-112, Defendant must demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance fell
8 below that of a reasonably competent attorney, see Patterson v. LeMaster, 2001-
9 NMSC-013, ¶ 17, 130 N.M. 179, 21 P.3d 1032, overruled on other grounds by State
10 v. Martinez, 2021-NMSC-002, ¶ 16, 478 P.3d 880;
11 {11} WHEREAS, to establish prejudice arising from trial counsel’s deficient
12 performance, Defendant must demonstrate that, but for trial counsel’s performance,
13 there is a reasonable probability that she would have gone to trial instead of pleading
14 no contest to the charges, see Patterson, 2001-NMSC-013, ¶ 18;
15 {12} WHEREAS, by limiting the evidentiary hearing, the district court did not
16 afford the parties an opportunity to submit evidence on whether trial counsel in fact
17 advised Defendant of the possibility that she could challenge the charge of
18 kidnapping pursuant to State v. Trujillo, 2012-NMCA-112, or, if counsel did not so
19 advise Defendant, whether trial counsel failed to identify the issue, made a strategic
4
1 decision not to challenge the charge of kidnapping, or determined that a challenge
2 pursuant to Trujillo would not have been successful, see Lytle v. Jordan, 2001-
3 NMSC-016, ¶ 26, 130 N.M. 198, 22 P.3d 666 (“A prima facie case for ineffective
4 assistance of counsel is not made if there is a plausible, rational strategy or tactic to
5 explain the counsel’s conduct.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted));
6 State v. Reece, 1968-NMSC-080, ¶ 7, 79 N.M. 142, 441 P.2d 40 (stating that, where
7 claims for relief made by a habeas petitioner depend upon occurrences outside the
8 record, the district court errs by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve
9 them);
10 {13} WHEREAS, by limiting the evidentiary hearing, the district court did not
11 afford the parties an opportunity to submit evidence on the issue of whether trial
12 counsel’s failure to challenge the charge of kidnapping prejudiced Defendant, see
13 Patterson, 2001-NMSC-013, ¶ 29 (“Because courts are reluctant to rely solely on
14 the self-serving statements of defendants, which are often made after they have been
15 convicted and sentenced, a defendant is generally required to adduce additional
16 evidence to prove that there is a reasonable probability that [the defendant] would
17 have gone to trial.”);
18 {14} WHEREAS, the district court’s oral ruling limiting the evidentiary hearing
19 failed to indicate a sufficient basis for such limitation, see Rule 5-802(H)(4); Miller
5
1 v. Tafoya, 2003-NMSC-025, ¶ 13, 134 N.M. 335, 76 P.3d 1092;
2 {15} WHEREAS, the district court’s order partially granting Defendant’s amended
3 petition for writ of habeas corpus does not adequately identify the basis of the court’s
4 determinations that (1) trial counsel provided deficient performance in failing to
5 challenge the charge of kidnapping and (2) Defendant suffered prejudice as a result
6 of trial counsel’s deficient performance;
7 {16} WHEREAS, this Court having considered the briefs and being otherwise fully
8 informed on the issues and applicable law;
9 {17} WHEREAS, this Court has chosen to exercise its discretion under Rule 12-
10 405(B) to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order;
11 {18} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the district court’s order partially
12 granting Defendant’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and that
13 this matter is remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on all issues
14 raised in Defendant’s amended petition requiring the submission of evidence or
15 testimony for their proper resolution.
16 {19} IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18 C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice
6
1
2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice
3
4 DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice
5
6 JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice
7
8 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice
7