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, Damien Macias, who entered a plea (guilty or no contest) in relation to charges against him. Subsequently, he appealed the judgment and sentence that were rendered pursuant to his plea, contending that the sentence exceeded what he believed was allowed by the plea agreement.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the sentence should be subject to challenge on appeal because it exceeded what he believed was allowed by the plea agreement (para 2).
• Appellee: The State, implicitly through the court's analysis, argued that a guilty or no contest plea generally operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the resultant conviction(s) and sentence, and that the sentence was within the range specified in the plea agreement (paras 1-2).

Legal Issues

• Whether a defendant who has entered a guilty or no contest plea can appeal the resultant conviction(s) and sentence on the grounds that the sentence exceeded what was allowed by the plea agreement.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence was within the range specified in the plea agreement.
• Whether the Defendant's request to withdraw his plea is properly before the appellate court.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jennifer L. Attrep, unanimously decided to dismiss the appeal. The Court observed that a guilty or no contest plea generally operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the resultant conviction(s) and sentence, citing State v. Chavarria. The Defendant's sentence was found to be within the range specified in the plea agreement, and the argument regarding the sentence exceeding the plea agreement was not considered jurisdictional. Furthermore, the Court noted that the question of withdrawing the plea appeared to remain pending before the district court and was not properly before the appellate court at this time. The decision to dismiss was based on these observations and the principles cited from previous cases (paras 1-4).