State v. Miranda-Aguirre
| Decision Date | 06 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-37997,A-1-CA-37997 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAIME RENE MIRANDA-AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Emily Tyson-Jorgenson, Assistant Attorney General
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Victor E. Sanchez, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
{1} Jaime Rene Miranda-Aguirre (Defendant) appeals his conviction for one count of perjury, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-25-1 (2009). On appeal Defendant argues (1) that his right to speedy trial was violated, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.
{2} On June 20, 2016, Defendant was indicted on one count of perjury relating to statements he made during an evidentiary hearing in a domestic relations case. Six witnesses testified during Defendant's November 13, 2018 jury trial, including Defendant, New Mexico State Police Sergeant Roberto Diaz, United States Border Patrol Agent Sergio Angeles, Abigail Nevarez, Ana Maria Navarro Gallegos, and Nohemi Navarro.
{3} Ana Gallegos identified Defendant in court as Beto, and testified that she met Defendant five years prior to the hearing. About a year and a half after meeting Defendant, Gallegos attended a hearing on an order of protection that she filed against Defendant. A redacted recording of that hearing was admitted as an exhibit and played for the jury. The exhibit recorded the district court judge identifying the respondent in the case, Heriberto Herrera, as being present in the court, asking the respondent questions, and the respondent's responses. Gallegos identified Defendant as the Heriberto Herrera who attended the hearing.
{4} Gallegos's mother, Maria Navarro was present at the order of protection hearing and testified that Defendant identified himself as Heriberto Sanchez Herrera and denied going by any other name during the hearing.
{5} In December 2014, Sergeant Diaz assisted with a video recorded interview of Defendant. A portion of the interview was admitted as an exhibit and played for the jury. During the interview, Defendant identified himself as Jaime Rene Miranda-Aguirre and provided a birthdate of August 16, 1983. When asked by Sergeant Diaz whether he went by the names Heriberto or Beto, Defendant replied, "No."
{6} Agent Angeles testified that he encountered Defendant in April 2016, at which time Defendant initially identified himself as Heriberto Herrera. Agent Angeles knew Defendant was not being truthful about his identity because he had previously located a United States Passport application for an individual identified as Heriberto Herrera and the photograph submitted with the passport application was not Defendant. Agent Angeles showed Defendant Heriberto Herrera's photograph. Defendant stated that he did not know who the person in the photo was but later admitted that his real name was Jaime Rene Miranda-Aguirre.
{7} Abby Nevarez testified that when she first met Defendant, he introduced himself as Beto. At the time of trial she had known Defendant for five years and he was the father of her son. Defendant told Navarez his real name was Jaime Rene Miranda-Aguirre when they were deciding what to name their son. Defendant told Nevarez that he used the name Heriberto so that he could remain in the United States and had received documents with the false name from the real Heriberto's father.
{8} Defendant testified on his own behalf and admitted that he told Sergeant Diaz that his name was Jaime Miranda Aguirre and that he did not go by any other name. Defendant also admitted that during the order of protection hearing he claimed he did not go by any name other than Heriberto Herrera.
{9} The jury convicted Defendant of perjury. The district court sentenced Defendant to eighteen months imprisonment and applied 942 days of presentence confinement credit to the sentence. This appeal followed. We reserve discussion of facts relevant to Defendant's speedy trial and ineffective assistance of counsel claims where appropriate in our analysis.
{10} We begin our analysis with Defendant's assertion of a violation of his right to a speedy trial. We then address Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. And finally, we address the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Defendant's conviction.
{11} Defendant argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated resulting in prejudicial pretrial incarceration. Defendant did not preserve this issue and therefore requests that we review this claim for fundamental error. See State v. Smith, 2016-NMSC-007, ¶ 57, 367 P.3d 420 (). In deciding whether to address a speedy trial violation claim raised for the first time on appeal the appellate court considers whether there was such "a striking violation of the constitutional right" that it would be appropriate to do so. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 53, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) NMRA (). Given the approximately twenty-nine month delay in this case during which Defendant was incarcerated, some discussion of the underlying facts is necessary to explain why we have concluded that the delay in this case did not result in a "striking violation" of Defendant's speedy trial rights justifying review for fundamental error.
{12} "The right of the accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution." State v. Spearman, 2012-NMSC-023, ¶ 16, 283 P.3d 272. When determining whether a defendant has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial, we examine the four factors identified in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972): "(1) the length of delay in bringing the case to trial, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay." State v. Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 5, 366 P.3d 1121. Although "[i]n analyzing these factors, we [ordinarily] defer to the district court's factual findings concerning each factor as long as they are supported by substantial evidence." State v. Radler, 2019-NMCA-052, ¶ 14, 448 P.3d 613 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Defendant did not raise the constitutional claim until this appeal, "there were no district court proceedings to develop fully the facts relating to the Barker factors, and the district court had no opportunity to weigh them." State v. Valdez, 1990-NMCA-018, ¶ 15, 109 N.M. 759, 790 P.2d 1040. We are left, therefore, to searchthe record for striking violations of the speedy trial right that are apparent on the face of an incomplete record.
{13} We first examine the length of delay. This is an objective factor apparent from the record. The determination of the length of delay serves two functions. First, the length of delay "acts as a triggering mechanism for considering the four Barker factors if the delay crosses the threshold of being 'presumptively prejudicial[.]' " Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 22. Second, the length of delay "is an independent factor to consider in evaluating whether a speedy trial violation has occurred." Id. A delay is considered presumptively prejudicial "according to the complexity of [the] case: one year for a simple case, [fifteen] months for a case of intermediate complexity, and [eighteen] months for a complex case." Id.
{14} Both Defendant and the State agree that this is a simple case. Simple cases often "require less investigation and tend to involve primarily police officer testimony." State v. Wilson, 2010-NMCA-018, ¶ 24, 147 N.M. 706, 228 P.3d 490 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Given that there was a single perjury charge, six witnesses including Defendant, no significant evidentiary issues and no experts or scientific evidence, we agree that this is a simple case. See State v. Laney, 2003-NMCA-144, ¶ 15, 134 N.M. 648, 81 P.3d 591 ().
{15} Defendant was indicted and arrested on June 20, 2016, and brought to trial on November 13, 2018—a time span of approximately twenty-nine months. The delay exceeds the one year presumptively prejudicial delay threshold by approximately seventeen months. We therefore proceed to inquire further into the Barker factors. See State v. Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 21, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387.
{16} Ordinarily under our speedy trial analysis we would next weigh the reasons for the delay, however, in evaluating whether the delay amounted to fundamental error, our review benefits from first considering the prejudice factor. Preventing prejudice to those accused is "[t]he heart of the right to a speedy trial[.]" Id. ¶ 12. The speedy trial right is intended "(i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired." Id. ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "As to the first two types of prejudice, some degree of oppression and anxiety is inherent for every defendant who is jailed while...
To continue reading
Request your trial