AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

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 was sentenced after the district court revoked his probation. This revocation followed the Defendant's underlying conviction, which was entered pursuant to a guilty plea by the Defendant.

Procedural History

  • Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, William G. Shoobridge, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

  • Appellant: The Defendant sought to amend the docketing statement to include a new issue regarding whether the underlying conviction violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (para 3).
  • Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue regarding the violation of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is viable (para 3).

Disposition

  • The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied (para 3).
  • The district court judgment revoking the Defendant's probation and the subsequent sentence were affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

  • M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with James J. Wechsler and Michael D. Bustamante, Judges concurring, provided the opinion. The Court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue regarding the Second Amendment violation because the Defendant had waived his constitutional challenge by pleading guilty without reserving the issue for review. The Court found that a guilty plea, when voluntarily made after advice of counsel and with full understanding of the consequences, waives objections to prior defects in the proceedings and also operates as a waiver of statutory or constitutional rights, including the right to appeal. Since the Defendant did not address the issues raised in the docketing statement in his memorandum in opposition, those issues were deemed abandoned. The Court affirmed the district court's judgment for the reasons set forth in the calendar notice (paras 2-5).
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.