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 case involves the Defendant, Roman F. Montano, Sr., who pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second and third degrees, following an incident with his twelve-year-old cousin, G.H., in August 2009. The Defendant later sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly highlighting that his attorney erroneously informed him that his DNA was found on the couch where the incident occurred, which was not true (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically citing counsel's failure to investigate defense witnesses, file a witness list, and erroneously advising him about non-existent DNA evidence (paras 5, 15, 21).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance, particularly regarding the erroneous advice about DNA evidence, to the extent that it affected his decision to plead guilty (paras 13, 22).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jennifer L. Attrep writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Henry M. Bohnhoff and Emil J. Kiehne, found that although the Defendant's counsel provided deficient advice regarding DNA evidence, the Defendant failed to demonstrate that this misinformation prejudiced his decision to plead guilty. The court noted the Defendant's willingness to go to trial despite knowing about the purported DNA evidence and highlighted the strength of the State's case against him, including a confession and the victim's testimony. The court also considered the strategic decision by the Defendant to plead guilty with the intention of later withdrawing the plea based on claims of ineffective assistance. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the Defendant been properly advised about the DNA evidence (paras 13-33).