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, Francisco J. Granados, challenged the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. The appeal concerns both the judgment and sentence in one case and the order revoking probation in another. The State had promised not to oppose a five-year sentencing cap in the plea agreement, regardless of whether the Defendant violated his conditions of release pending disposition of the case. However, the State later requested the district court to sentence the Defendant to twelve and one-half years of incarceration, which the Defendant argued was a breach of the plea agreement.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge, May 7, 2015: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant Francisco J. Granados): Argued that the State breached the sentencing agreement by opposing a five-year sentencing cap, despite the plea agreement's terms.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the plea agreement's provision not to oppose a five-year sentencing cap was implicitly conditioned upon the Defendant not violating his conditions of release pending disposition of the case.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based on the State's alleged breach of the plea agreement.
• Whether the plea agreement was ambiguous regarding the conditions for the State not opposing a five-year sentencing cap.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (with Roderick T. Kennedy, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals reviewed the terms of the plea agreement de novo and found that the State breached its unqualified promise not to oppose a five-year sentencing cap. The district court had failed to clarify any ambiguity in the plea agreement before accepting it and incorrectly found the agreement to be unambiguous. The State's argument that the non-opposition to a five-year cap was conditioned upon the Defendant not violating his conditions of release was not supported by the language of the plea agreement. Consequently, the Defendant was entitled to either withdraw his plea or be resentenced by a different judge, as the State's breach of the plea agreement constituted a violation of the Defendant's rights (paras 1-9).