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, Esteban Ortega a/k/a Francisco Manuel Lopez, appealed the district court's denial of his petition to vacate and set aside his convictions related to a guilty plea for a controlled substance violation. The appeal centered on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his attorney failed to adequately inform him of the potential immigration consequences of his plea, which could lead to deportation and a permanent bar from re-entering the United States legally.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, December 21, 2015: Order Denying Petition Under Rules 5-304 and 1-060.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly weighed the evidence when denying his petition to vacate and set aside his convictions. He contended that his counsel's failure to effectively communicate the severe immigration consequences of his guilty plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's petition to vacate and set aside his convictions based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the district court should have followed Rule 5-803 NMRA for petitions for post-sentence relief, despite the case being filed before the rule's effective date.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's petition to vacate and set aside his convictions.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (Linda M. Vanzi and J. Miles Hanisee, Judges concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's denial of the Defendant's petition. The appellate court emphasized that motions to withdraw a guilty plea are at the discretion of the trial court and are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. The court highlighted that it does not re-weigh evidence on appeal and relies on the fact finder's judgment unless there is a clear error or abuse of discretion. In this case, the district court had before it testimony from attorney Karlos Ulibarri, who claimed to have informed the Defendant of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The district court found Ulibarri's testimony credible and concluded that the Defendant had not established ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court refused to re-weigh the evidence or question the credibility determinations made by the district court (paras 2-4).
  Regarding the procedural issue raised by the Defendant concerning the applicability of Rule 5-803 NMRA, the Court of Appeals noted that this rule was effective for cases filed on or after December 31, 2014, and was not applicable to the present case, which was filed before this date. The Defendant did not respond to this issue in his memorandum in opposition, leading the appellate court to deem the issue abandoned (para 5).