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 was charged with over 200 counts of embezzlement/fraudulent use of a credit card. Under a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to 15 out of the 207 charges. The agreement proposed a sentence of no more than four years and six months of incarceration, plus five years of supervised probation, with the Defendant agreeing to sign a promissory note to repay the balance of restitution two months before the end of his probation (paras 4, 10).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge, judgment, sentence, and order partially suspending sentence, and the order denying his amended motion to reconsider (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that he did not enter into a knowing plea agreement, was denied effective assistance of counsel, was denied due process when his motion and amended motion for reconsideration were denied without a hearing, and received an unduly harsh sentence (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued for the affirmation of the district court's decisions, proposing summary affirmance in their calendar notice (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Did the Defendant enter into a knowing plea agreement?
• Was the Defendant's counsel ineffective?
• Was the Defendant denied due process when the motion and amended motion for reconsideration were denied without a hearing?
• Did the Defendant receive an unduly harsh sentence?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, sentence, and order partially suspending sentence, and the order denying the Defendant's amended motion to reconsider (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with J. Miles Hanisee authoring the opinion and concurrence from Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Michael E. Vigil, Judge, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  Regarding the knowing plea agreement: The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the Defendant's motions to reconsider his sentence, noting that the Defendant did not move to withdraw the plea but instead filed motions to reconsider his sentence, which were denied. The court concluded that the Defendant did not demonstrate that he entered the plea unknowingly or unintelligently (paras 2-4).
  Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel: The court concluded that there was no evidence on record indicating that the Defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter into the plea agreement. It was noted that the plea agreement clearly stated the possible term of incarceration and that the Defendant waived all defenses, suggesting that the Defendant was adequately counseled (paras 7-8).
  Regarding due process: The court found that the Defendant was not deprived of his right to present favorable evidence related to mitigation at his sentencing hearing. The court held that the Defendant's right to due process was not violated and that no hearing was required prior to the denial of his motions to reconsider (paras 9-10).
  Regarding the unduly harsh sentence: The court remained persuaded that the Defendant’s claim of cruel and unusual punishment was not properly presented, noting that the Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the law and the plea agreement (paras 12-13).