At least one court has declined to "categorically assign" weight to COVID-related delays, instead considering "the circumstances of the particular case." State v. Pate, No. A-1-CA-39508, 2023 WL 3033314, at *3 (N.M. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2023).

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted) "The completeness of the record determines whether we address a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel through direct appeal." State v. Pate, 2023-NMCA-088, ¶ 26, 538 P.3d 450 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {¶19} The whole of Defendant's argument is that he would have prevailed on a speedy trial motion had one been made.

{¶17} As to the weight of delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, this Court has recently "decline[d] to categorically assign to either party the weight of delay caused by the suspension of criminal jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic." State v. Pate, 2023-NMCA-088, ¶ 9, 538 P.3d 450, cert. denied, 2023-NMCERT-008 (S-1-SC-39924). Instead, we held that "we consider the circumstances of the particular case."

We decline to do so because this "narrow" exception applies only in situations similar to those in Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, the case in which our Supreme Court adopted the test. See State v. Pate, 2023-NMCA-088, ¶¶ 10-12, 538 P.3d 450. The facts of Defendant's case are not similar to the facts in Serros.