Wiseman said Juan Borja Camacho failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient or substandard as he claimed.
On Sept. 21, 2006, a jury found Camacho guilty of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree.
He was sentenced to 15 years for each count to run consecutively on Nov. 16, 2006.
He was also found guilty of two counts of disturbing the peace and sentenced to six months for each count, to run concurrently with the other sentences.
He argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred in admitting handwritten notations on a calendar found at his residence into evidence.
He said the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal, and that the trial court imposed a sentence that was detrimental to the interest of justice.
The Supreme Court denied his appeal and his conviction was affirmed on Feb. 3, 2009.
Camacho initially filed an inadequate petition but he was allowed to withdraw his application for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to re-file the same in accordance with the procedural requirements.
He filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus with the assistance of the Public Defender’s Office on May 9, 2008.
He then sought private counsel.
The first hearing was on Jan. 29. 2009.
The trial court stated that the issue of the petitioner being denied bail while his appeal was pending is not moot because the Supreme Court has since denied his appeal, affirming the trial court’s conclusion that he was not a candidate for release pending the outcome of his appeal.
Wiseman stated that the commonwealth law expressly recognizes writs of habeas corpus.
“Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Commonwealth Superior Court or any of its judges. Every person unlawfully imprisoned or retrained under any pretense may apply for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the imprisonment,” Wiseman’s said.
He added that “a criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.”
The judge noted that at trial, a defendant is presumed innocent and may demand that the government prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense, the presumption of innocence disappears.
Wiseman said in denying the petitioner’s release pending appeal, the trial court concluded that the petitioner’s appeal posed no question which will likely result in a reversal of his conviction.
In addition, the court said the petitioner posed as threat to the community and had demonstrated a pattern of contempt for CNMI’s laws.
Wiseman said Camacho’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel are not entirely clear.
The petitioner presented issues where he based his claims for ineffective assistance from counsel.
These issues include exoneration of bail without due process, failure to mention exoneration of bail in the petition for release pending appeal and on appeal, failure to cross examine a witness, advising petitioner not to testify, comments made to petitioner’s nephew regarding petitioner’s conviction and incarnation, counsel discharging a juror which petitioner identified as a good candidate, intentionally betraying petitioner so that petitioner’s siblings could take over his home and farm, failure to provide a copy of the appellate transcript to petitioner, failure to continually renew the motion for acquittal all the way to the end of seven days after the verdict, and that the petitioner did not receive a conflict-free attorney.
Wiseman said it must be shown that counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant so that there would have been a reasonable probability of a different outcome if not for the counsel’s deficiency.
Wiseman said to show the counsel’s performance as deficient, the petitioner must show that his attorney’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” or was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.
