AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 convicted of criminal sexual penetration of a minor. He appealed the conviction, raising issues regarding the jury venire's composition and ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically regarding the failure to pursue a defense based on sexsomnia.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury venire did not contain a fair cross-section of the community and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a defense based on sexsomnia, a disorder similar to sleepwalking.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to meet the burden of proving the jury venire's composition was not a fair cross-section of the community and opposed the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury venire contained a fair cross-section of the community.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to pursue a defense based on sexsomnia.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the conviction, denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement, and denied the request to remand the matter for a hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion and Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, provided several reasons for its decision:
  The Court concluded that the Defendant did not meet his burden of proving the jury venire's composition was not a fair cross-section of the community, as there was no showing that any under-representation resulted from systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process.
  Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court found that the Defendant did not make a prima facie case because there was no record made below of this claim. The Court noted that for it to remand for an evidentiary hearing, there must be a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance, which was not met in this case.
  The Court reasoned that without information about a potential expert on sexsomnia or what such an expert would testify to, and without a record showing that the disorder is supported by medical evidence, that the Defendant suffered from this disorder, or that it would explain his actions, they could not assume that expert testimony would have been helpful to the defense.
  The Court also emphasized that it is for trial counsel to assess whether a particular expert’s testimony will be helpful and that without a record of the substance of such testimony, the Court will not second guess counsel’s decision.
  Finally, the Court mentioned that although the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, he may still pursue habeas proceedings on this issue.