NMSC: Right to Counsel Cannot Be Jettisoned for the Sake of Judicial Efficiency

In State v. Cruz, the New Mexico Supreme Court corrected a number of frankly baffling errors made by a magistrate and district court. The opinion does not appear to create new law. Rather, the Court exercised its discretion to fix basic errors in the interest of justice. In doing so, it emphasized the importance of the right to counsel in criminal proceedings, and reiterated that the burden is on the State–not the defendant–to bring a defendant to trial.

Background

The defendant was arrested for breaking dishes and a flowerpot in his girlfriend’s home and charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to property of a household member. At his arraignment, he did not have counsel and asked for a public defender. The magistrate entered an order appointing the public defender. He then immediately entered a “no contest” plea and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

About a month later, the public defender entered an appearance on behalf of the defendant. The PD immediately moved to set aside the no contest plea, which had been entered by a pro-se party “burdened by his mental deficiencies.” The magistrate denied the motion and sentenced the defendant to 364 days incarceration and a $1000 fine.

The defendant appealed to district court. However, after filing the appeal, nothing further happened in the appeal for eight months. The district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution but allowed either party to reinstate it within 30 days. Neither party did. The court then entered an order stating the appeal would be dismissed unless the defendant could show good cause why it should not be.

At the hearing on the show cause order, the Court suggested that the case should have been heard within six months. This referred to an old rule–no longer in force–suggesting that the State had to prosecute cases within six month to avoid violating a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Surprisingly, the public defender agreed, stating that he believed it was his burden to do that. The court dismissed the appeal, remanding the case to the magistrate for enforcement of the sentence.

The defendant appealed the dismissal to the court of appeals. But the court felt that the defendant had failed to develop an adequate record for the issues he raised, and affirmed. Undeterred, the defendant appealed again, this time to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

Analysis

At the supreme court level, Defendant focused on two theories: that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he had been denied due process. The State argued that Defendant had no right to appeal at all. But it also recognized that there was no legal basis to support the district court’s dismissal.

The Court agreed that Defendant had been denied due process, but for a different reason: the magistrate had deprived him of his right to counsel when he pleaded no contest. “A conviction obtained through a deprivation of the right to counsel,” the Court observed, “is plainly invalid.” Because the Court vacated the conviction for this reason, it did not need to address the parties’ other arguments.

Defendant Was Deprived of His Right to Counsel

The Sixth Amendment provides every criminal defendant the right to assistance of counsel for his defense. The right attaches regardless of the defendant’s ability to pay or the severity of the crimes he is accused of. Here, although he did not need to, Defendant asserted that right, and the magistrate ordered appointment of counsel. Nevertheless, the magistrate immediately adjudicated Defendant’s guilt by entering the no contest plea.

However, deprivation of counsel at the pleading stage is not necessarily reversible error. Reversal is only required where the deprivation prejudiced the defendant. So, for example, it is not reversible error to be deprived of counsel when making a not guilty plea if you are subsequently represented for the rest of the proceeding. Here, in contrast, the plea itself was a conviction, adjudicating Defendant as guilty. And reversal “is automatic if a defendant is completely deprived of counsel when guilt is determined; the defendant need not demonstrate prejudice.”

This case serves as a reminder that fundamental constitutional rights cannot be jettisoned for the sake of judicial efficiency. At every level of our courts, the Constitution must stand as an immovable bulwark to secure the rights of individuals in every case. Central to our criminal justice system is the right to counsel, which in turn ensures the protection of all other rights. It is the right to counsel that was denied in this case.

It followed that the State’s argument that Defendant had no right to appeal was without merit. “A guilty plea that has been obtained in violation of the Constitution does not waive the right to appeal.”

The District Court Erred in Dismissing the De Novo Appeal

The district court offered two justifications for its dismissal of the appeal: first, that the defendant had taken no action to prosecute the appeal for more than 180 days, and second, that the defendant had not given good reason for not moving to reinstate the appeal after the first order dismissing it.

This was error for two basic reasons. First, there was no law requiring a case to be dismissed if not brought to trial within six months. Although such a rule had existed, it had long since been abolished.

Second, it was error to “shift the burden to Defendant to bring himself to trial.” An appeal to the district court is not really an appeal–it is a new trial. The burden remains on the State to bring that trial to conclusion in a timely manner. It made no sense to punish Defendant for the delay–the responsibility was at all times with the State.

Ultimately, this case does not move the law. But it is important for at least two reasons. First, of course, it re-emphasizes the importance of the constitutional right to counsel. And second, it shows the importance of not giving up the fight. It would have been easy to be discouraged after twice being shot down on appeal, especially with such clear issues. But the defendant and his attorneys persevered and were ultimately able to obtain the right result. The flip side, of course, is that it can take years to get a correct decision even when the issue is simple and the error is obvious.

Looking for a New Mexico appellate attorney? Contact us or give me a call at (505) 273-9379.