This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was accused of stealing copper tubing, causing criminal damage to property, and conspiring to commit criminal damage. The Defendant claimed that he was hired by a third party to remove the copper tubing and that another witness could corroborate this defense. However, the defense counsel did not locate or call this witness to testify at trial.
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of larceny, criminal damage to property, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage to property.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to locate and call a witness who could corroborate his defense that he was hired to remove the copper tubing. He requested that the case be assigned to the general calendar to access transcripts that might support his claim.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the decision not to call the witness was a tactical choice. The State argued that a habeas corpus proceeding was the appropriate forum for further development of the claim.
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to locate and call a corroborating witness?
- Should the case be assigned to the general calendar to allow access to transcripts that might support the Defendant's claim?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Kennedy and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant failed to make a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. It emphasized that decisions regarding whether to call witnesses are matters of trial strategy and tactics, which do not typically constitute ineffective assistance unless they are shown to be incompetent and prejudicial.
The Court noted that the Defendant's claim regarding being hired to remove the copper tubing was presented to the jury, and the proposed witness would have only provided corroborative, not exculpatory, evidence. The jury could have disbelieved the witness as well as the Defendant. Thus, the failure to call the witness did not prejudice the defense.
The Court also rejected the Defendant's request to assign the case to the general calendar, stating that appellate rules do not allow counsel to search the record for possible errors without a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance. It reiterated that a habeas corpus proceeding was the appropriate forum for further development of the claim, as it would allow trial counsel to provide testimony regarding their decisions.