In re Direct Criminal Contempt Maestas
| Decision Date | 22 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-39379 |
| Citation | 517 P.3d 942 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the Direct Criminal CONTEMPT OF Alan H. MAESTAS, Attorney-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
517 P.3d 942
In the MATTER OF the Direct Criminal CONTEMPT OF Alan H. MAESTAS, Attorney-Appellant.
No. A-1-CA-39379
Court of Appeals of New Mexico.
Filing Date: June 22, 2022
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Van Snow, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Peifer, Hanson, Mullins & Baker, P.A., Rebekah A. Gallegos, Sara N. Sanchez, Sarah K. Hyde, Albuquerque, NM for Appellant
DUFFY, Judge.
{1} Attorney Alan Maestas was held in contempt of court after he refused to proceed with trial. The district court sentenced Maestas
to 182 days of incarceration with 152 days suspended, a $999 fine, $55 in fees, and an undetermined amount of restitution. On appeal, Maestas challenges the propriety of his conviction for direct criminal contempt as well as the district court's sentence. We affirm Maestas's conviction for direct contempt. However, viewing the district court's sentence as an abuse of discretion, we remand for resentencing.
BACKGROUND
{2} Maestas's contempt conviction arose during the course of his representation of a criminal defendant when Maestas refused to go forward with trial. The background of the criminal case is relevant to our analysis and the following recitation of events is gleaned from the record below. We emphasize, however, that none of the allegations against the defendant had been tested or proven at trial by the time this matter came to us on appeal, and therefore, nothing in this opinion should be construed as a determination on the matters at issue in the separate criminal case against the defendant.
{3} The defendant, a semi-truck driver from Texas transiting through northern New Mexico, was stopped by law enforcement in Union County in March 2017 after he failed to stop at the port of entry. During a search of the defendant's truck, officers discovered J.V., the 12-year-old daughter of the defendant's girlfriend, along with a narcotic pain pill, two opened condoms, and a bottle of lubricant. The defendant was placed on a twenty-four-hour driving hold and parked overnight at a travel stop in Clayton. The following day, officers returned to the truck to conduct a welfare check on J.V., during which they took custody of her and transferred her to the care of the Children, Youth and Families Department. J.V. underwent an initial safe house interview where she made no disclosure of sexual abuse and declined to undergo a sexual assault exam. In two subsequent safe house interviews, however, J.V. alleged that the defendant had sex with her while traveling through New Mexico. J.V. then underwent a sexual assault exam, which revealed injuries consistent with her allegations. The defendant was arrested and charged with criminal sexual penetration of a minor, child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, and enticement of a child.
{4} Maestas entered his appearance in the defendant's case in September 2018, after the case had been pending for nearly a year and a half.1 Maestas developed a defense theory that centered on discrediting the interview methods used to elicit the allegations J.V. made during her safe house interviews. Maestas retained Dr. Susan Cave, a clinical and forensic psychologist, as an expert witness who would provide testimony supporting the defense theory. The court qualified Dr. Cave as an expert witness after a Daubert hearing, and Dr. Cave's expert testimony became a crucial part of the defendant's defense.
{5} Maestas and the state vigorously litigated the case over the next two years. Trial was set and continued twelve times in total by either the defendant or the state, for a variety of reasons, or due to complications relating to the COVID-19 pandemic that struck New Mexico in March 2020. We focus here on the final continuance granted by the district court, and the ensuing trial setting itself, as these are the events that led to Maestas's contumacious conduct.
{6} On August 25, 2020, the district court issued an order continuing and resetting the jury trial scheduled to take place that day because the defendant's mother—whom he lived with and cared for—tested positive for COVID-19. Trial was reset for October 26, 2020. On October 9, Dr. Cave informed Maestas that she would be having surgery on October 27 and would not be able to testify during the October trial setting. Two business days later, Maestas filed a motion requesting a one-month trial continuance, citing Dr. Cave's unavailability and his recent discovery that the state had not disclosed or provided statements for two witness interviews that had occurred before Maestas took over as defense counsel. The district court held a hearing on the motion and questioned Dr. Cave directly. Dr. Cave explained that she could not remember when Maestas told her that the trial had been continued to
October 26. She further stated that her surgery had been scheduled for five weeks and that Maestas had told her about the new trial date at some point after that. During the hearing, the court ruled that Maestas had failed to timely notify Dr. Cave about the October trial date and concluded that failure was a matter of attorney negligence rather than an extraordinary circumstance necessitating a continuance.2 In its written order, the court found that the case had been pending for three and one-half years, that Maestas had moved to continue the trial six times, and that "[i]t has become apparent to the Court that it is part of defense's strategy to delay trial for as long as possible in this matter." The district court denied the continuance and ordered the case to proceed to trial.
{7} In response to that order, Maestas filed a motion on October 22—four days before trial—arguing that denial of the continuance violated the defendant's due process rights. Maestas indicated that he intended to appear in court on the trial date and would inform the court that he could not provide effective assistance of counsel without Dr. Cave's testimony. Maestas expressly stated that the purpose of the motion was to provide the court with notice to "call off jurors and to schedule other judicial matters." The court denied this motion the next day and ordered Maestas to appear at trial, stating that "[a]ny party or attorney who violates this order shall be subject to contempt of court and appropriate sanctions as permitted by law."
{8} One final event delayed the October 26 trial setting: on the evening of October 25, the judge and district court staff arrived at the county courthouse in Clayton and were promptly snowed in by a storm that closed the courthouse for three days, delaying trial until the morning of October 29. That morning, Maestas filed a twenty-nine-page brief informing the court that he found himself in a dilemma: he was forced to choose between obstruction by disobeying the district court's command that he participate in the trial of the defendant or to proceed without being able to vigorously advocate on behalf of the defendant given his inability to present otherwise admissible expert testimony as to Defendant's theory of defense. Maestas's choice in resolving that dilemma would become clear during the morning's proceedings.
{9} The court called the case and, outside the presence of the jury, reiterated its ruling on the October 22 motion and asked Maestas how he wished to proceed. Citing American Bar Association (ABA) standards for representation of criminal defendants, Maestas responded by first outlining his argument that he was incapable of providing effective assistance of counsel and that he had informed the defendant of his inability to adequately represent him at trial. Maestas further stated that he had explained the ABA guidelines to the defendant, and since the defendant indicated he was unsure whether he wanted Maestas to continue or not, the defendant should be allowed to seek independent counsel in order to protect his constitutional rights.
{10} The court responded that effective assistance of counsel was a legal question for the court, not a determination to be made unilaterally by defense counsel. The court then provided a detailed explanation of why the denial of the continuance did not render counsel's assistance ineffective and did not deprive the defendant of due process. The court stated it found Meastas's attempt to essentially call off the trial by placing the
court and the state on notice of his intentions not to proceed to be a "highly improper, unlawful, and unjustified obstruction of the administration of justice." The court ruled that Maestas was not rendered ineffective and ordered him to proceed with trial or be held in contempt. Before allowing Maestas to respond, the court reiterated that Maestas was on notice that he would be held in direct criminal contempt should he refuse to proceed, and that the maximum fine and a significant jail sentence would be imposed.
{11} Maestas responded by emphasizing his duty to his client and the Constitution as a criminal defense attorney. He noted that he appeared in front of the court with knowledge that he could be held in direct criminal contempt, and rather than simply refusing to appear and instead facing indirect contempt proceedings, possibly in front of a different judge, he appeared as directed. Speaking directly to the district court judge, Maestas stated that he would not subject his...
To continue reading
Request your trial