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, David Saenz, Jr., was convicted on April 14, 2016, for trafficking and receiving stolen property after entering a repeat offender plea and disposition agreement. Subsequently, the Defendant's probation was revoked due to violations including tampering with a urine sample, testing positive for methamphetamines, and admitting to using illegal substances. The Defendant sought to withdraw his plea and reverse his underlying convictions, claiming insufficiency of evidence, mishandling of evidence, and deprivation of due process rights.

Procedural History

• District Court of Grant County, April 14, 2016: Defendant's guilty plea to trafficking and receiving stolen property was accepted, and a sentence was imposed with probation.
• District Court of Grant County, (Date N/A): Probation was revoked based on violations reported.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the underlying convictions should be reversed due to insufficiency of evidence, mishandling of evidence, and deprivation of due process rights. Contended that the probation violation stemmed from mishandled evidence and that he should have been allowed to withdraw his original plea. Additionally, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and that his right to counsel on appeal was violated.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant waived the right to trial and appeal by entering into a plea agreement, except on jurisdictional grounds. Maintained that the Defendant's notice of appeal was untimely and that the mishandling of evidence did not affect the probation revocation decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's underlying convictions should be reversed due to insufficiency of evidence, mishandling of evidence, and deprivation of due process rights.
• Whether the Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his original plea following the probation violation.
• Whether the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of the right to counsel on appeal are valid.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order revoking probation and imposing the previously suspended sentence.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Stephen G. French and Daniel J. Gallegos concurring, the court found:
  The Defendant's notice of appeal was untimely, and by entering into a plea agreement, he waived both the right to trial and the right to appeal his convictions on anything other than jurisdictional grounds (para 2).
  The Defendant's motion for reconsideration was treated as a motion for a reduction of sentence under Rule 5-801 NMRA, not as a motion to withdraw the plea or for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (para 3).
  Requests to withdraw a plea after the entry of a final judgment are not cognizable on direct appeal and should be pursued through habeas corpus proceedings (para 4).
  Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be pursued in a collateral proceeding, as the record on appeal does not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel (para 5).
  The Defendant waived his right to appeal by entering into a plea and disposition agreement, thus the right to counsel on appeal does not apply in this context. Any remedy, if any, is through habeas corpus proceedings (para 6).
  The revocation of the Defendant's probation was based on sufficient evidence unrelated to the mishandled evidence claims, as the probation violation report indicated tampering with a urine sample, positive test for methamphetamines, and admission to using illegal substances (para 7).