AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves Kevin Ogden (Defendant) appealing from the district court's order denying his petition for post-sentence relief under Rule 5-803 NMRA. The appeal challenges the district court's findings regarding Defendant's 1989 plea, including issues related to competency, voluntariness of the plea, sufficiency of evidence supporting the charge, deficiency or denial of counsel, sentence and probation revocation, and the district court's written orders in the Rule 5-803 case (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued errors in his underlying plea and sentence, and the district court’s denial of his Rule 5-803 petition. Contended issues regarding competency at the time of the plea agreement, voluntariness of his plea, sufficiency of evidence for the embezzlement charge, deficiency or denial of counsel, his sentence and probation revocation, and the district court’s written orders in the Rule 5-803 case. Additionally, raised new allegations of a conflict of interest by the district court judge and illegal transport resulting in injury (paras 2-4, 6-9).
• Respondents: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the respondents. However, it is implied that the respondents opposed the Defendant's arguments and supported the district court's decision (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant demonstrated error regarding his competency at the time he entered into the plea agreement.
• Whether the Defendant's plea was voluntary.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence supporting the embezzlement charge.
• Whether there was any deficiency or denial of counsel.
• Whether the sentence and probation revocation were appropriate.
• Whether the district court's written orders in the Rule 5-803 case were correct.
• Whether the district court judge had a conflict of interest due to previous roles.
• Whether the "illegal transport" to a hearing, resulting in Defendant's injury, was improper (paras 2-4, 6-9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the Defendant's petition for post-sentence relief under Rule 5-803 NMRA and denied the motion to amend as non-viable (para 1, 10).

Reasons

• Per KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge (ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge and SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the Defendant's repetition of arguments and failure to specifically point out errors of law and fact in his memorandum in opposition insufficient to demonstrate error (para 3).
  The Court determined that the Defendant's new allegations, including the conflict of interest by the district court judge and illegal transport resulting in injury, did not present viable issues. Specifically, the Court noted that prior work as a prosecutor does not require recusal of a district judge unless there is demonstrated personal bias or prejudice, which the Defendant failed to show. Additionally, the Court found no authority preventing a district court judge from requiring a Defendant in custody to appear at a hearing and deemed the Defendant's accusations of arranging transport for the purpose of injury as unsupported by evidence (paras 6-9).
  The Court remained unpersuaded that the Defendant demonstrated any error by the district court and affirmed the district court's decision for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion (para 10).