Opinion ID: 2582454
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cummings's Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Is Without Merit

Text: {23} The district court did not err in dismissing Cummings's ineffective assistance of counsel claim without a hearing because that claim, as pled, is without merit. Cummings first asserted that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the defense of impossibility since the person he sent the images to was not actually a child. However, criminal liability for attempt is appropriate when the defendant has done everything in his power to commit the crime but did not complete the crime due to a factual impossibility. State v. Cearley, 2004-NMCA-079, ¶ 22, 135 N.M. 710, 92 P.3d 1284 (citing State v. Lopez, 100 N.M. 291, 292, 669 P.2d 1086, 1087 (1983)). Cummings also asserted that his counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction since he was in Texas at the time he sent the images that were received in New Mexico. This argument, too, lacks merit. See State v. Jones, 39 N.M. 395, 399-400, 48 P.2d 403, 405-06 (1935) (holding that defendants could be convicted of bribery in New Mexico even though the actual transaction occurred in Texas since defendants attempted to obstruct justice in New Mexico); see also People v. Ruppenthal, 331 Ill. App.3d 916, 265 Ill.Dec. 43, 771 N.E.2d 1002, 1008 (2002) (finding proper jurisdiction in a solicitation of sexual contact of a minor case since Illinois has a valid public interest in protecting minor children . . . from individuals who seek underage sexual partners using the Internet); State v. Backlund, 672 N.W.2d 431, 436 (N.D.2003) (stating in a child luring case that a person who, while outside this state, solicits criminal action within this state and is thereafter found in this state may be prosecuted under [this state's] law).