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 non-conditional guilty plea to criminal sexual contact of a minor. Before sentencing, he was granted permission for a psycho-sexual evaluation but was not transported for the evaluation. The district court denied his motion for continuance of the sentencing hearing, and he was sentenced to eighteen months of incarceration.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant contends that the case should be re-calendared for a more thorough review and argues that the district court's denial of his motion for continuance to undergo an evaluation prior to sentencing was an abuse of discretion.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion for continuance to undergo an evaluation prior to sentencing was an abuse of discretion.
• Whether the Defendant, having entered a non-conditional guilty plea, has the right to appeal.

Disposition

• The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The court considered the Defendant's arguments against the proposed dismissal but found them unconvincing. It was determined that the Defendant, by entering a non-conditional guilty plea, waived the right to appeal, including any objections to prior defects in the proceedings and the right to appeal on the grounds of an illegal sentence. The court also noted that the Defendant is not considered an aggrieved party eligible to appeal due to the valid non-conditional plea agreement entered.