This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper vers ion filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 33,343 4 ALBERT JOSE RAMIREZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 7 Drew D. Tatum, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Karl Erich Martell, Assi stant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 ZAMORA, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment and sentence, convicting 1 him in a bench trial for battery upon a poli ce officer. We issueda notice of proposed 2 summary disposition, proposing to affirm . Defendant has f iled a memorandum in 3 opposition to our notice. Having considered Defendant’s response, we remain 4 unpersuaded that the districtcourt erred. We affirm. 5
{2} Defendant raises three issues on appeal. Fi rst, he argues that the district court 6 erred by ruling that the officer, who trans ported Defendant from the detention center 7 to court, is a “peace officer” within th e meaning of NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-24 8 (1971) (proscribing the offense of battery upon a police officer). [DS 4; MIO 3-4] 9 Second, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 10 conviction. [DS 5; MIO 4-7] Third and last , Defendant argues that he was denied the 11 effective assistance of counsel. [DS 5-6; MIO 7-11] 12
{3} In his response, Defendant has not pres ented this Court with any new factual 13 or legal arguments that persuade us that our notice incorrectlyaddressed Defendant’s 14 first two issues. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the notice, we hold that the 15 transport officer was a “peace officer” with in the meaning of Section 30-22-24 and 16 that sufficient evidence supports Defendant’s conviction for that offense. 17
{4} In response to our notice, Defendant explains that his trial counsel was 18 ineffective based on the following: trial c ounsel was a very busy attorney who did not 193 have time to prepare properly for his case, including the failure to call witnesses who 1 would have been able to prove that Defendant was unabl e to walk and was severely 2 mentally ill; trial counsel allowed Defendant to go to trial when he was mentally ill 3 and failed to have a further psychological and competency evaluation conducted; trial 4 counsel failed to call police witnesses to undermine the credibility of the transport 5 officer, who had an “ever-changing story” [MIO 9]; trial couns el wanted Defendant 6 to take a plea and pressured him into a bench trial; trial counsel did not provide him 7 with discovery until after the trial was over; trial counsel “failed tosecure [Defendant] 8 effective treatment in sentencing” [MIO 9]; and trial counsel completely failed to 9 communicate with him about the case. [MIO 8-9] 10
{5} Defendant further states that he understands that these claims were not 11 developed below and that he has the burden of showing ineffective assistance of 12 counsel. [MIO 9] Defendant ne vertheless asks this Court to remand for an evidentiary 13 hearing, arguing that it would not comport w ith judicial economy torequire collateral 14 proceedings in this case. [MIO 10] 15
{6} We decline to remand for an evidentiary hearing. “If facts necessary to a full 16 determination are not part of the record, anineffective assistance of counsel claim is 17 more properly brought through a habeas corpus petition[.]” State v. Roybal , 2002- 18 NMSC-027, ¶ 19, 132 N.M. 657, 54 P.3d 61. We cannot and will not disturb the 194 preference repeatedly expressed by the New Mexico Supreme Court to resolve 1 ineffective assistance of counsel claims inhabeas proceedings, where the record is 2 inadequate for a full review on direct appeal. See also State v. Samora , 3 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 23, 307 P.3d 328 (“Becausewe usually have insufficient 4 information before us to evaluate an ine ffective assistance clai m on direct appeal, as 5 in this case, ‘this Court prefers that these claims be brought under habeas corpus 6 proceedings so that the defendant may actually develop the record with respect to 7 defense counsel’s actions.’” (quoting State v. Arrendondo , 2012-NMSC-013, ¶ 38, 8 278 P.3d 517)); State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 2004-NMSC-009, ¶ 20, 9 135 N.M. 375, 89 P.3d 47 (stating that “[t]heCourt of Appeals . . . remains bound by 10 Supreme Court precedent.” (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted)). Defendant’s claims are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case 12 of ineffective assistance of counsel. Th erefore, we have no sound basis upon which 13 to remand. If Defendant wishes to pursue hi s claims, we encourag e him to do so in a 14 conforming petition for writ of habeas corpus. 15
{7} For the reasons set forth in our notice and in this opinion, we affirm the district 16 court’s judgment and sentence. 17
{8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 185 ___________________________ 1 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

__________________________________ 4 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 5

__________________________________ 6 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 7