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

• In 2003, the Petitioner was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (seventh or subsequent) in separate cases. In 2005, as part of a plea agreement, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to four charges in four separate cases, including the two DUI charges, while other pending cases against him were dismissed. More than ten years later, the Petitioner sought to vacate his DUI convictions, arguing issues related to the plea agreement and sentencing. The district court denied his petition as untimely (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Curry County: Denied Petitioner's petition to vacate DUI convictions as untimely.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that there should be no timeliness requirement under Rule 5-803 for petitions alleging fundamental or jurisdictional error and claimed his sentence was illegal due to various procedural deficiencies, including the absence of a written plea agreement, lack of a factual basis for prior convictions, not being informed of the permissible range of sentences, receiving more probation than permitted, and ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether a timeliness requirement under Rule 5-803 applies to petitions alleging fundamental or jurisdictional error.
• Whether the Petitioner's sentence was illegal due to alleged procedural deficiencies in the plea agreement and sentencing process.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying the Petitioner's appeal based on the timeliness requirement under Rule 5-803, without addressing the second argument regarding the legality of the sentence (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Zachary A. Ives, unanimously concluded that Rule 5-803 imposes a timeliness requirement for filing petitions for post-conviction relief, even when a petitioner alleges fundamental error. The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that historical procedural mechanisms and the writ of corum nobis, which did not impose time requirements, should apply to Rule 5-803 petitions. The Court also clarified that Rule 5-803(G)(1) does not eliminate the discretion of the district court to deny a petition alleging fundamental error when it is not a successive petition. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 5-803's plain language and precedent established in McGarrh v. State, emphasizing the requirement for petitions to be brought within a reasonable time (paras 5-11).