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 Defendant entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to three separate charges. The plea agreement included a recommendation from the State for a maximum of six years of incarceration, but emphasized that sentencing was ultimately at the discretion of the court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court was required to sentence him to no more than six years of incarceration as recommended by the State in the plea agreement (para 2). Contended that the district court failed to properly advise him that it was not bound by the State's recommendation, rendering the plea agreement ambiguous (paras 4, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Supported the proposed affirmance of the sentence and agreed that a portion of the sentence, specifically the inclusion of a period of probation, should be reversed (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court was bound by the State's sentencing recommendation of no more than six years of incarceration contained within the plea agreement.
• Whether the district court was required to inform the Defendant that it was not bound by the State's sentencing recommendation before deviating from it.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court to the extent the Defendant challenges the number of years of incarceration included in that sentence.
• The court reversed the district court’s inclusion of a period of probation in the sentence (para 13).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the plea agreement's language, emphasizing the sentencing discretion of the court, did not bind the district court to the State's recommendation of no more than six years of incarceration. The agreement explicitly stated that sentencing was at the court's discretion, and the State's recommendation was just that—a recommendation (para 2). The court also rejected the Defendant's procedural argument that the district court was required to inform him explicitly that it was not bound by the State's recommendation. The court noted that the proper remedy for a failure to inform a defendant about the non-binding nature of a sentencing recommendation would be to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea, a remedy the Defendant explicitly rejected (paras 3-6). Furthermore, the court found that the district court had, in fact, informed the Defendant of its discretion during the plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Rule 5-304(B) NMRA and the precedent set by State v. Pieri (para 5). The court distinguished this case from State v. Gomez, where a specific, guaranteed sentence was part of the plea agreement, noting that in the present case, the plea agreement contained no binding sentencing agreement, and the district court's discretion was clearly communicated (paras 8-10). Lastly, the court agreed with the State that the inclusion of a probation period in the sentence was incorrect and reversed that portion of the sentence (para 12).