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, Delmar Newman, admitted to engaging in multiple sexual acts with his twelve-year-old niece on or about March 6, 2010. He was charged with four counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration on a child under thirteen years of age, one count of criminal sexual contact, and one count of tampering with evidence. After a motion to suppress his statements to detectives was denied, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree during a change of plea hearing.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Contended that the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and lacked a factual basis.
• Appellee (State): Argued in support of the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, maintaining that the plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, with a sufficient factual basis.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
• Whether there was a factual basis for the Defendant's guilty plea.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael D. Bustamante, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, based on his signature on the plea agreement and his statements at the change of plea hearing. The Court distinguished this case from precedent where a plea was not considered voluntary due to the defendant's confusion, noting that the Defendant here did not express misunderstanding or confusion after the parole provision was explained to him. The Court also found substantial compliance with Rule 5-303(F) NMRA, despite the Defendant's claims of procedural deviations, noting that the district court addressed the Defendant personally and ensured he understood the nature of the charges and his rights. Regarding the factual basis for the plea, the Court concluded that the Defendant's acknowledgment of his guilt at the plea hearing, in conjunction with the plea agreement and the district court's recitation of the offenses, provided a sufficient factual basis. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument for a recess during the plea hearing, noting that his counsel did not request one and the record did not indicate a need for it.