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, Michael Stevens, entered into a plea agreement with the State following his initial sentencing for larceny and receiving stolen property.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge, May 5, 2015: The district court issued an amended judgment and order committing the Defendant to the corrections department.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued for the appeal of the amended judgment, order, and commitment following his plea agreement and initial sentencing.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the Court's notice proposing to affirm the Defendant's convictions and the subsequent procedural steps outlined in the notice.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's amended judgment should be affirmed, reversed, or remanded for resentencing consistent with the original written judgment.
• Whether the Defendant can demonstrate prejudice from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim due to trial counsel's failure to preserve issues for appeal.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for larceny and receiving stolen property.
• The Court reversed the district court’s amended judgment.
• The case was remanded to the district court to resentence the Defendant consistent with the original written judgment for a total of six and one-half years of imprisonment, followed by parole.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., M. MONICA ZAMORA, J., concurring): The Court proposed to affirm the Defendant's convictions and reverse the district court's amended judgment based on the procedural history and the plea agreement entered by the Defendant. Both the Defendant and the State filed responses supporting the Court's notice of proposed disposition. The Court concluded that the Defendant could not demonstrate prejudice regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the issues were addressed on appeal. Consequently, the Court affirmed the convictions, reversed the amended judgment, and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the original judgment, imposing a total of six and one-half years of imprisonment followed by parole (paras 1-4).