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>); see also People v. Ruppenthal, 331 Ill.App.3d
recognizing that new mexico courts will enforce a contractual choiceoflaw provision unless to do so would violate fundamental principle of justice or deeprooted traditions of new mexico holding that texas district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction over paternity proceeding regarding minor born in texas and taken to mexico by mother a mexican citizen one day before putative father commenced paternity action holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied 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 recognizing the validity of the singlelarceny doctrine in new mexico