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 appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis or a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion. The appeal concerns the adequacy of counsel's assistance, specifically whether the counsel failed to provide a good faith estimate of evidence against the Defendant and allowed him to plead guilty despite a strong chance of acquittal, and whether the counsel failed to discuss the collateral consequences of the Defendant's guilty plea.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge, dismissing the Defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis or a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his counsel's assistance was deficient for failing to provide a good faith estimate of the evidence against him, allowing him to plead guilty when he had a strong chance of being acquitted, and for failing to discuss the collateral consequences of his guilty plea.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court was correct in dismissing the Defendant's petition for a writ of coram nobis, considered as a motion filed pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether counsel was required to inform the Defendant of the collateral consequences of his guilty plea, specifically its potential use to enhance future sentences.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the Defendant's petition for writ of error coram nobis or a Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J., with Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring: The Court considered the Defendant's claims regarding the inadequacy of counsel's assistance and concluded that the counsel's performance did not fall below that of a reasonably competent attorney. The Court found that the Defendant's counsel had provided an assessment of the evidence and informed the Defendant of the sentence he faced if convicted, which falls within the range of advice given by a reasonably competent attorney. The Court also noted that the Defendant had not demonstrated that the advice to enter a plea agreement was unreasonable, especially considering the Defendant's concerns about the cost of traveling to and from New Mexico for his defense. Furthermore, the Court addressed the Defendant's reliance on federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case law, finding it unpersuasive and not applicable to the Defendant's case. The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Defendant's petition, concluding that the Defendant had not met his burden in establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the counsel's advice was within the range of competence expected.