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 no contest plea to charges of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm. Following the plea, the Defendant was placed on supervised probation for three years, with the State reserving the right to pursue habitual offender enhancements if the Defendant violated probation. The Defendant was later arrested for embezzling a motor vehicle and for a probation violation, leading to a probation revocation hearing where he was sentenced to four years of incarceration after admitting to the status violation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, April 17, 2014: The Defendant's no contest plea was accepted, and he was sentenced to supervised probation for three years, with specific conditions regarding habitual offender enhancements (para 3).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, May 20, 2014: Following a probation violation, the Defendant was unsatisfactorily discharged from probation and sentenced to four years of incarceration (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his plea and untimely appeal were due to ineffective assistance of counsel. He also contended that the district court deprived him of his right to counsel by summarily denying his motion to withdraw his plea without counsel present and without seeking a waiver of counsel from him. Additionally, the Defendant argued that his underlying convictions violate double jeopardy (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's appeal was timely and thus within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
• Whether the Defendant's plea and untimely appeal were the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the district court deprived the Defendant of his right to counsel by summarily denying his motion to withdraw his plea without counsel present.
• Whether the Defendant's underlying convictions violate double jeopardy (paras 5-6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Defendant's appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, as the appeal was untimely (para 11).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring, found that the Defendant's appeal was untimely, depriving the Court of jurisdiction. The Court noted that timely filing of an appeal is a mandatory precondition to its jurisdiction and that the Defendant did not contest the timeliness of his appeal or the unconditional nature of his no contest plea. The Court also highlighted that the presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel does not apply to untimely appeals following a plea of no contest. The Court further observed that the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, filed pro se, was untimely and could be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, over which the Court lacks jurisdiction on appeal. The Court concluded that the Duran presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel is unavailable to the Defendant on two bases: the presumption only applies to represented defendants, and it does not extend to criminal appeals following a plea of no contest. The Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the Defendant's claims concerning double jeopardy and the manner in which the district court denied his motion to withdraw his plea agreement (paras 6-14).