This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 31,293 9 ANTOINETTE ROMERO, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Kenneth Martinez, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 M. Naomi Salazar 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellant 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 WECHSLER, Judge. 21 Defendant entered a plea of guilty and was convicted of possession with intent 222 to traffic cocaine. Prior to sentencing, De fendant filed a motion to withdraw her plea. 1 The motion was denied. We proposed to affi rm the denial of the motion, and we have 2 received a memorandum in opposition to our proposal. We have considered 3 Defendant’s arguments, but we find them unpersuasive. We affirm. 4 The basis for Defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea was that her counsel was 5 ineffective “during the course and investigation of the case and speci fically . . . during 6 the plea process.” [RP 100] As noted inour calendar notice, Defendant made a 7 number of claims regarding her counsel’s performance, including a claim that counsel 8 should have filed a motion to suppress. Inthe motion to withdr aw her plea, Defendant 9 claimed that she was aware of a “possible” search and seizure issue and that she could 10 have testified about a “chain of events leading to her arrest” and the search of her 11 purse that would have been dispositive of th e case. Defendant also claimed that there 12 were discrepancies between the testimony before the grand jury and evidence in the 13 police and lab reports, and a motion to suppre ss would have forced the district court 14 to make a credibility determination. [RP 114] 15 The denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for abuse of 16 discretion. State v. Hunter , 2006-NMSC-043, ¶ 11, 140 N.M. 406, 143 P.3d 168. A 17 prima facie showing of ineffective assistan ce of counsel requires a showing that trial 18 counsel’s performance fell below that of a reasonably competent attorney, and 193 Defendant suffered prejudice because of the deficient performance. State v. Hester , 1 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 9, 127 N.M. 218, 979 P.2d 729. As explained in our notice, 2 Defendant’s claims regarding the success of a motion to suppress were based on 3 speculation and did not establish that her counsel’s performance fell below that of a 4 reasonably competent attorney. In addition, Defendant’s counsel countered 5 Defendant’s arguments when he testified th at there was no “good faith basis” to file 6 such a motion and presented an affidavit stating that he had disc ussed all matters with 7 Defendant, including inconsistencies in the reports. [RP 132; 155-58] 8 In the memorandum in opposition, Defendantnow claims that her counsel was 9 ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss because the grand jury was 10 improperly advised in that it was not read the definition of “possession.” [MIO 3] In 11 her docketing statement, Defendant made a brief reference to this claim, but did not 12 develop it. Defendant now alleges that, according to he r witness, had a motion to 13 dismiss been filed, three of the charges w ould have been dismissed. [MIO 3] The 14 State rebutted Defendant’s claim by pres enting testimony from Defendant’s counsel 15 that he had reviewed the grand jury r ecording and did not r ecall any non-compliance 16 with advisement to the jury. [DS 9] Again, Defendant has not demonstrated that, 17 because of a failure to file a motion to dismiss based on alleged defects in the 18 advisement of the grand jury, her counsel’s performance fell below that of a 194 reasonably competent attorney. 1 Because Defendant has not made a prima facie showing of ineffective 2 assistance of counsel, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 3 denying the motion to withdraw the plea on that basis. For the reasons discussed in 4 this opinion and in our calendar notice, we affirm. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

_______________________________ 7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

______________________________ 10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 11

______________________________ 12 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 13